Among all the lies being perpetuted by gay activists, the waters have been truely muddied for political purposes. Scientific principles have been abandoned for social/political activism (http://www.narth.com/docs/TheTrojanCouchSatinover.pdf).

For example, sexual re-orientaion is a workable solution through psychotherapy. People that want to change can be helped by the God of Christianity.

Proof Positive from NARTH (http://www.narth.com/docs/criticignores.html):

Of the five formerly gay men on the original board of Exodus International, four have not reverted to homosexuality. Frank Worthen and Ron Dennis continue to lead ex-gay organizations. The other two original board members were rumored to have returned to a gay identity but according to both men, this is not true. Thus, 80% of the original Exodus board members are still ex-gay after 30 years.

What is the importance of these observations? Given the longevity of change that most people involved with Exodus and other ministries report, it is an important contribution to our understanding of sexual orientation and human nature overall to give attention to the whole truth. Although critics for a living such as Mr. Besen may not be able to change their thinking, others may not be so closed minded.


The God of Christianity can do what the liberals are incapable of -- He can change a person's sexual orientation and help them live the life they want to live. Liberals are so ashamed they do not have this power. Well Ha! Ha!

It prooves God is a real, life-changing force. Are there any secular success stories out there for changing sexual orientation? :rolleyes:

As I said before proof-positive: God can change a life where liberals fail to make any difference, and this makes them ashamed.

-----------------------------------------------------

The churches that affrim homosexual relationships are cheating the homosexuals. A personal testimony (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/012/36.50.html):

Cheated by the Affirming Church
Contrary to what some churches teach, it is homosexuality—and not its suppression—that enslaves people like me.
by Anonymous | posted 02/17/2005 09:00 a.m.

I feel cheated. Cheated by those who say that they love me and are trying to help me. Yet, if things were left up to them, I would still be in a prison of my own making—enslaved by homosexuality and without hope.

Like many other Christians, I have struggled for years with same-sex attraction. By God's grace I know freedom from a way of life that still holds too many others captive. Yet many within the so-called affirming church would deny us that freedom. They say homosexuality is God's plan for our lives, even though the Bible clearly says that homosexual behavior is a sin. It is not my intention to prove it; many conservative theologians have already done so. Instead, let me highlight, on a practical level, the negative effects of affirming this sin.

Does God gain some mysterious personal benefit by prohibiting homosexual practice? My exposure to homosexuality convinces me of a far more basic rationale for the biblical prohibition: Homosexuality is bad for me.

-------------------------------------------------------

From My Path to Lesbianism (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/002/36.62.html):

Mary Beth Patton, a psychologist, counselor, and researcher of same-sex attraction who is on the board of Portland Fellowship, an Exodus International-affiliated ministry, so described what happens to women like me: "Women who deal with same-sex attraction often possess a history of dis-identification with their mothers, and therefore with their femininity. This leads to a longing for connection with the feminine that becomes sexualized in adolescence."

Girls disconnected from their mothers often begin to hate their emotions and all the other things that make them women. I don't necessarily mean those things that make us look feminine on the outside, but those internal characteristics that actually make us feminine beings. For example, I was always comfortable wearing dresses, getting my nails done, and wearing lots of jewelry, so I didn't see those as contemptible qualities in my mother. But when I saw her let herself be a victim of my father's verbal assaults, I vowed that I would never be like my mother. I'd never be under the control of a man, never be dependent on a man, never be weak or admit my vulnerability. Psychologists call such feelings of children toward their parents "defensive detachment." In not allowing my mother to influence me, I walled myself off, not just from anything negative she could have instilled in me, but also from anything good she could have imparted to me as a woman.

Of course, misogyny doesn't always lead to lesbianism. In my case it fostered same-sex attraction because it cut me off from men, from women, from God, and even from myself. I hated men. I hated women. I hated myself for being a woman. I had no more value for women than any women-hating man does, and yet no one was more surprised to discover that I, too, was a misogynist. And I've had to confess that sin to God. My detachment from men and women left me walled off from being able to receive anything good from either men or women.

Testimony from another ex-lesbian (http://www.narth.com/docs/okay.html)


Ex-Gay Is Ok
By Linda Wall
The author of this personal testimony lobbies state and federal legislators from an ex-gay point of view. She aspires to a political career in the Virginia State Senate.

Recently I participated in the first Annual Ex-gay Lobby Day on Capitol Hill and it felt great! I am so very thankful that I no longer live as a lesbian. I feel like a bird set free from a cage. It's great to be alive!

My adventure into the gay scene started with fun and excitement. But years later, it had fundamentally changed me--spiraling me downward into a depression that nearly cost me my life.

---------------------------------------------

If you are homosexual and want to change, then don't listen to the lieing liberal soul-destroyers from hell. Don't let these worthless scum-bags trick you. You can get the help you want and need from professionals in the psychiatric community.

Here are some links for you:

NARTH (http://www.narth.com/docs/dean.html)

Exodus International (http://www.exodus-international.org/)

Don't listen to the liars that try to paint them as failures.

Love conquers ALL sins.

One of your "positive proof personal testimonies" was from "Prophet Yahweh," the self-described prophet of the UFO gods that come to visit at his command.

I think we can safely disregard your "sources" out of hand as being bullshit just on the merit of that one. Which one of these was to a study published in a peer-reviewed journal? What longitudinal studies have you reviewed that examine the participants of such "reorientation" programs over time?

What you've done is applied your bigotry to a conclusion you want and looked for data, regardless of the veracity of the source, and applied it to your conclusion. Such bullshit will win in the mind of a bigot every time.

i for one... want to here more... and i applaud those with the strenght of character who for various reasons have abandonned being gay, and living in complete sin...

and if just one of those sources are good, then thats great...

any messed up sources, do not detract from the overall signifigance of the benefit towards peoples lives, when they abandon gay behavior.

-MT

Let's see the source that provides a testable, reproducible and longitudinal study of gay reorientation success. Just one.

Woody,

Moderator comment.

Please don't copy/paste large texts. It violates forum rules. Just paste the links. Please replace these long pastes in this thread with appropriate links within 24 hours otherwise I will delete them.

I know for a fact that the treatment works and you are WRONG, and I feel like I am doing your homework for you.

First, I never implied that you were a homosexual that reoriented. But if its true that's your business (you did say you "know for a fact" and this would seem the only way you could "know"). Second, if there's any "homework" to be done, it would be on the individual that makes the bold claims that you do. You are asserting that the so-called 'reorientation' of homosexuals is a fact. I'm simply asking for you to supply facts. Instead, you've gone to great lengths to provide us with anecdotes from UFO nutters and apologists of various religious delusions.

I have already provided you with some successes and you didn't choose any of the ones that can be verified. Why don't you contact the charter members of Exodus International? It's been in existence now for 30 years, and would not be around if it did not work -- just common sense.

Woody, are you truly this ignorant or are you so wrapped up in these copy/paste operations that you fail to even read your own words? The The Society for Psychical Research was founded in 1882 but they've yet to demonstrate any psychic abilities. Fallacious appeals to authority and anecdotes of believers are hardly evidence and only an utter fool would consider them so. Empirical evidence is what is needed in order to support your claims.

So let me do your homework for you:

Emprical Evidence to Support the Claim of 'Reorientation' of Homosexuals

Only a few studies have been conducted that even attempt to provide some empiricism with regard to the notion that gays can be 'reorientated' to heterosexual. Most notably was Spitzer (2003) who used self-reported informants to document at least some "minimal" change over 5 years. Pseudo-therapy groups like NARTH base much of their claims on the work of studies like Spitzer's -and Spitzer is probably the most recently notable effort, but the pseudoscience of reparative therapy probably began with Moberly (1983), who used no study subjects at all! She based her entire book on her own opinions based on the ancient works of luminaries like Freud.

But its the work of Spitzer and others that NARTH would like to cite (and you'd notice if you did your homework instead of relying on me to do it for you) as valid. The primary outcome of Spitzer's study was that, in general, some gay men and women can change their core behaviors and appear content to be heterosexual. The problem is that the very thing that pseudoscience groups like NARTH accuse gays of (pretending to be naturally orientated to a given gender) is what may be happening in their 'reorientations!'

Criticisms of 'Reorientation' and 'Reparative' Therapy of Homosexuals

The only thing that can really be said about NARTH and other nutter groups like them (assuming that even some of their anecdotes are valid) is that they are successful in getting homosexuals (or bisexuals) to favor religious delusions over sexual orientation. Let's face it: people kill for religion; die for religion; and fuck for religion. Why wouldn't they switch genders of sex-partners for religion?

Moreover, as Carlson (2003) noted, “It may be possible that some of [Spitzer’s] research participants might have a more fluid sexual orientation, such as bisexuality” (p. 427). Also, Spitzer’s investigationwas heavily weighted toward highly religious Christian, Caucasian, middle-class individuals, thus ignoring the diversity of individuals who might seek conversion therapy. Overall, the research on conversion therapies is heavily weighted toward a homogeneous, predominantly White, male, Christian population. Shidlo and Schroeder’s (2002) participants were 90% male, 86% Caucasian, and of those who reported religious orientation, 89% Christian. Spitzer’s study was 97% Christian and 95% Caucasian and was predominantly middle-class and middle-aged.

Assumptions Made By Nutter Groups Like NARTH

Religious nutbars that think they can 'cure' homosexuality assume that the causes of homosexuality are known and that homosexuality is unnatural, mentally unhealthy, and sinful and should be changed. Each of these are pseudoscientific when applied to attempts at mental health.

Methodological problems with studies like Spitzer's

(a) results were based on restricted, self-selected samples that represent a socially stigmatized population and thus capitalized on participants’ vested interests to manage selfimpressions, promote their values and lifestyles, overreport successes, and underreport failures;

(b) outcomes are ambiguous because participants’ idiosyncratic conceptualizations of sexual orientation, identity, attraction, and desire were not analyzed and research variables were not well conceptualized;

(c) some studies neglected to use fantasy and arousal to indicate sexual orientation;

(d) some results were based on therapists’ subjective impressions;

(e) comparison or control groups were not used;

(f) long-term, objective outcome results are unavailable; and

(g) dynamic factors, such as time, maturation, and contextual factors, were not analyzed to account for participants’ changes in sexuality and identity development process. Thus, the research base that supports the effectiveness of sexual reorientation is void of systematic, well-established methodologies that are needed to obtain valid scientific results (Wainberg et al., 2003).

In addition, O’Donohue and Plaud (1994) reviewed the evidence for learning and unlearning of sexual arousal responses and concluded that the empirical support for the conditioning or reconditioning of sexual arousal is weak. Barbaree, Bogaert, and Seto (1995) also concluded that substantive changes in the direction of one’s underlying sexual orientation might be difficult or impossible to achieve once established.

Tozer & Hayes (2004) further note that 'reorientation' therapy lacks empirical validation and also suggest that the main focus is to provide derisive messages about same-sex attractions. They found that most who seek "conversion therapy" are do so as an "expression of introjected messages about unacceptable aspects of homosexuality and an extension of one’s being in the early stages of gay or lesbian identity development."

Woody's massive copy/paste and possible violation of Fair Use -but definately a violation of forum rules. A link would have sufficed.

The pseudoscientific extract of Luiz Sérgio Solimeo's book Defending a Higher Law made liberal use of quotes mined from various sources sans context. Moreover, it made equally liberal use of fallacious arguments like "if homosexuality is natural, then why don't humans also engage in cannibalism or filicide? [paraphrasing]" First, it is completely fallacious to assume that because natural behaviors, instincts or acts that are common across taxa that all behaviors, instincts and acts would therefore be common. What a dumbass. Second, both cannibalism and filicide are very much a part of human history and culture. We have the added infection of religious delusion that very often causes these acts in humanity, but they are present. I won't even bother citing references to them since they are common knowledge.

The author asserts: "Anyone engaged in the most elementary animal observation is forced to conclude that animal “homosexuality,” filicide and
cannibalism are exceptions to normal animal behavior. Consequently, one cannot speak of them as instincts in animal nature." From here, we can safely ignore the remaining dribble from the author, since it all hinges on this assertion.

The assertion is a mere assumption based on the hope that that which the author (and his similarly biased religious/superstitious readers) deems most dispicable in nature is abherant and therefore not instinctual. I'll ignore the obvious strawman of going down the path of filicide/cannibalism and focus on the central theme: homosexuality.

If either are truly "exceptions" in nature, then they should be rare and not entirely predictable.

Unfortunately for religious nutbars: (and these were from just a few journals lying around)

Hoser (2005) noted that male-male sexual acts were common among Australian death adders.

Van Gossum et al (2005) comment that same-sex mating attempts are common among "many animal groups" and this challenges theories of sexual selection, which predict optimization of reproductive success.

Switzer et al (2004) agree and state that "homosexual pairing between males occurs under natural conditions in a wide variety of taxa, including many insect species." In their study group of Japanese beetles, they discovered that "[m]ale–male pairs were found in 30 of the 65 collection periods, with an average of 0.85 § 0.12 male–male pairs (3.4%) of 25 collected pairs (range, 0–3 pairs). In 3 years of sampling,we found that male Japanese beetles occasionally formed homosexual pairs in the field, with male–male pairs constituting approximately 1–6% of the pairs."

Bertran & Margalida (2003) found male-male mountings to be very common in polyandrous bearded vulture Gypaetus barbatus trios. In 167 copulation attempts recorded between 1991–1992 and 2000–2001, the percentage of male-male mountings recorded were 26.1 and 11.4%, respectively.

And lest you think I'm omitting the data that exists on primates (our own suborder, Anthropoidea, no less), allow me to include O'Neill et al (2004) who state, "examples of same-sex mating behaviors have been widely reported across anthropoid species, and such behaviors have been observed in every family of primates except prosimians."

Solimeo was right to point out those quotes which remind us that applying human behavioral characteristics to other animals is a foolish endeavor. This is obvious. We can't possibly know their psychology since we're unable to ask them with the expectation of receiving an answer. But he was flat out wrong in asserting that homosexual behvaviors do not exist in nature in anything but a common and predictable manner. These behaviors may have their causes in many places: genetics, kin selection, aggression prevention, aggression management, pleasure, politics, etc. The quote-mined sources of Solimeo notwithstanding, there are observations of primate species that appear to fulfill each of these causes at one time or another.

But the fact remains: male-male and female-female sex exists in nature with frequency and regularity and across many taxa.


References:

Religious Brainwashing Portion

Barbaree, H. E., Bogaert, A. F., & Seto, M. C. (1995). Sexual reorientation therapy for pedophiles: Practices and controversies. In L. D. & R. D. McAnulty (Eds.), The psychology of sexual orientation, behavior, and identity: A handbook (pp. 357-383).Westport, CT: Greenwood.

Carlson, H. M. (2003). A methodological critique of Spitzer’s research on reparative therapy. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32, 425-427.

Haldeman, D. C. (2001). Therapeutic antidotes: Helping gay and bisexualmen recover from conversion therapies. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy, 5(3-4), 117-130.

Moberly, Elizabeth (1983) Homosexuality: A New Christian Ethic. Cambridge: James Clarke Company

O’Donohue, W., & Plaud, J. J. (1994). The conditioning of human sexual arousal. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 23, 321-344.

Shidlo, A., & Schroeder,M. (2002). Changing sexual orientation: A consumers’ report. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33, 249-259.

Spitzer, R. L. (2003). Can some gay men and lesbians change their sexual orientation? 200 subjects reporting a change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 32, 403-417.

Tozer, E. E. & Hayes, J. A. (2004). Why do individuals seek conversion therapy? The role of religiosity, internalized homonegativity, and identity development. The Counseling Psychologist, 32(5), 716-740.

Wainberg, M. L., Bux, B., Carballo-Dieguez, A., Dowsett, G.W., Dugan, T., Forstein, M., et al. (2003). Science and the Nuremberg Code: A question of ethics and harm. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32, 455-457.

Homosexuality in Nature Portion

Hoser, Raymond (2005). Australian death adders in drag. Why being a he/she may help in the race to reproduce. Herptile 30(4), 139-143.

Van Gossum, H. ; De Bruyn, L.; Stoks, R. (2005). Reversible switches between male-male and male-female mating behaviour by male damselflies
Biology Letters 1(3), 268-270.

O'Neill, Ann C.; Fedigan, Linda M.; Ziegler, Toni E. (2004) Ovarian cycle phase and same-sex mating behavior in Japanese macaque females
American Journal of Primatology 63(1), 25-31.

Switzer, Paul V.; Forsythe, Patrick S.; Escajeda, Kara; Kruse, Kipp C.
(2004). Effects of environmental and social conditions on homosexual pairing in the Japanese beetle (Popillia japonica Newman). Journal of Insect Behavior 17(1), 1-16.

Bertran, Joan; Margalida, Antoni (2003). Male-male mountings in polyandrous bearded vultures Gypaetus barbatus: An unusual behaviour in raptors. Journal of Avian Biology, 34(4), 334-338.

SW said,

First, I never implied that you were a homosexual that reoriented. But if its true that's your business (you did say you "know for a fact" and this would seem the only way you could "know"). Second, if there's any "homework" to be done, it would be on the individual that makes the bold claims that you do. You are asserting that the so-called 'reorientation' of homosexuals is a fact. I'm simply asking for you to supply facts. Instead, you've gone to great lengths to provide us with anecdotes from UFO nutters and apologists of various religious delusions.

Go ahead and run to your ignorant paper resources pandered by the pro-gay political community at the expense of the people that want and need help. This is a tragedy that is truly worthy of condemnation -- people are forced into accepting feelings they don't want by the likes of you. You don't believe homosexuals can be helped because you can't help them. It is your own personal failure as a counselor.

But the real fact I'm referrring to is that some (ex-gays) are now in the ministry of Christian churches and they are running support groups for other ex-gays that have re-oriented.

FACT: How do you explain people that are ex-gay and need a support group?

FACT: How do you explain people that are ex-gay, and now in church.

FACT: How do you explain the ex-gay movement?

FACT: How do you explain this lady, that says you are clearly a liar. Talk to her. She is a real person:

http://www.narth.com/docs/Wall.jpg

Linda Wall (http://www.narth.com/docs/okay.html)
Recently I participated in the first Annual Ex-gay Lobby Day on Capitol Hill and it felt great! I am so very thankful that I no longer live as a lesbian. I feel like a bird set free from a cage. It's great to be alive!

She participates in the ex-gay lobby. How do you explain that?

Your white papers are meaningless in the face of real people that have made the change, some of whom I know personally.

You will never, ever, change my mind about it.

Woody's massive copy/paste and possible violation of Fair Use -but definately a violation of forum rules. A link would have sufficed.

You obviously aren't reading the links, and I'm tired of doing your homework for you. There is plenty of evidence that you are clearly WRONG, and I'm tired of arguing with a brainwashed liberal nutter that tows the politically correct line.

Nobody is saying it is easy to re-orient, but that it can be done. The human mind is capable of achieving any goal in a nurturing environment. It is hard to imagine a nurturing environment around yourself.

Woody,

Nobody is saying it is easy to re-orient, but that it can be done. But why change orientation? What's wrong with being Gay?

Woody, I did your homework for you! Your links are garbage (I actually clicked on some of them). None point directly to peer-reviewed or empirically conducted studies.

Your posts are full of homophobic nonsense (and I *did* notice your attempt to poison that well by adding a pseudo-definition for homophobic from the religious nutter site) and bigotry rather than any form of science. Posting a list of anecdotes proves only one fact: that religious delusions can be more profound than one's sexual orientation.

No mystery there. As I said, people kill, die and fuck for religion. Why wouldn't we expect them to give up their sexual identies.

As I also said, the religious nutters that try to "convert" or "reorient" gays do so under premises that have yet to be established: that homosexuality is abherent; unnatural; a choice; etc.

The religious nut-jobs that claim to "reorient" gays are working with pseudoscience. Its as simple as that.

I asked for some simple citations to works that supported their hypothesis and you couldn't even do that -I supplied that work for you! It would seem that it is you that isn't reading your sites, Woody.

Finally, I notice you using my vernacular in further attempts to poison the well, calling me a "brainwashed" and "nutter." Sorry, Woody. The "you-were-first" argument only works in 1st grade. Perhaps through 8th in southern states.

By the way, here's a couple of links so your posts don't get deleted:

http://www.narth.com/menus/positionstatements.html
http://www.narth.com/menus/myths.html
http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html
http://www.narth.com/docs/opp.html

(just me doing your homework for you).

SW said:

Your posts are full of homophobic nonsense

Define homophobic.

that religious delusions can be more profound than one's sexual orientation.

I agree, religious meditation is more powerful than one's sexual orientation. Call it delusion if you wish, but it work's just fine.

No mystery there. As I said, people kill, die and fuck for religion. Why wouldn't we expect them to give up their sexual identies.

If they want to change, is that ok with you?

As I also said, the religious nutters that try to "convert" or "reorient" gays do so under premises that have yet to be established: that homosexuality is abherent; unnatural; a choice; etc.

Yes, there are many religious "nutters"that believe that. Then there are people like yourself that believe sexual behavior can not be altered period. Who is doing the greater dis-service, the one that says they have to change or the one that says they can't change? Shouldn't the patient be allowed to make that choice for his/herself?

The religious nut-jobs that claim to "reorient" gays are working with pseudoscience. Its as simple as that.

It wasn't called pseudoscience until the gay movement came along. Before 1973, homosexual men received reparative therapy that didn't give a rat's ass about religion, according to Dr.Spitzer. In 1973 Dr. Spitzer (http://www.ojc.de/dijg/pdf/bulletin_1_2001_spitzer_en.pdf) made the recommendation to remove homosexuality from the APA's list of mental disorders at the request of gay activists. Why don't you read his interview concerning reparative therapy? It should be a real eye-opener for you.

In short a mental disorder is defined as follows: Can the patient function in society, and does the patient want the behavior? If either answer is "no", then it is considered a mental disorder. Society has moved to accept the homosexual, but if a patient doesn't want homosexual feelings, then it is called a mental disorder. A homosexual that's ok with their orientation does not have a mental disorder under this rubic. It's all a matter of the patient's perspective, not mine or yours.

I asked for some simple citations to works that supported their hypothesis and you couldn't even do that -I supplied that work for you! It would seem that it is you that isn't reading your sites, Woody.

It is no longer a hypothesis, Dr. Spitzer has proven that reparative therapy can work at least on some segment of the human homosexual population. If you believe homosexual orientation is immutable for all homosexuals, you are mistaken.

Here is the link on the study he performed. It is unfortunate that ex-gays had to picket the APA before any of them would even consider their cause. A real tragedy of politics before the patient I must say, quite shameful, indeed reprehensible. Fortunately Dr. Spitzer was open-minded enough to consider the patient as he did in 1973.

Spitzer's Technical Paper on Sexual Re-orientation Therapy Effectiveness (http://www.ojc.de/dijg/pdf/bulletin_2_2001_spitzer_en.pdf)


Finally, I notice you using my vernacular in further attempts to poison the well, calling me a "brainwashed" and "nutter." Sorry, Woody. The "you-were-first" argument only works in 1st grade. Perhaps through 8th in southern states.

Actually I was hearing the terminology before you were even born, or perhaps you were in diapers. In the early 70's we called liberals "nuts" and "brainwashed". The vernacular has been in use for a long time, like pre-WWII. About the same amount of time liberals have been on the scene I might add. Check it out in a dictionary. BTW, aren't you in Texas?

So tell me Skinwalker, is it an absurd idea to provide patients with sexual re-orientation therapy ? Are you prepared to make a fool of yourself?

WOODY!! Mate, go easy on your keyboard, that bad boy must be on fire!
A few questions for you:

1. Why do you care if people are homosexual?
2. Why would a homosexual wish to change their sexual orientation?
3. Do you have any homosexual friends or family that want to reorientate?

Thanks in advance for answering my questions. :)

Yeah man, Woody this is some of the most screwed up anti-gay rhetoric that I have heard outside of a Southern Baptist anti-gay rally. How's this for you then-

John 13:34- A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another;
as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

John 3:11- For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we
should love one another.

Peter 2:17- Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.

John 4:7- Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one
that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.

John 4:20- If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar:
for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he
love God whom he hath not seen?

There ya go Woody, three quotes from your divine book, all preaching brotherley love and acceptance. So, your anti-gay preach-fest went against the word of god. Congrats Woody, technically, you can burn in hell for what you just posted!

WOODY!! Mate, go easy on your keyboard, that bad boy must be on fire!
A few questions for you:

1. Why do you care if people are homosexual?
2. Why would a homosexual wish to change their sexual orientation?
3. Do you have any homosexual friends or family that want to reorientate?

Thanks in advance for answering my questions. :)

1) I believe many of them want and need help. I'll be honest when I say I have a religious opinion on the subject, but I don't have a right to make somebody else's decision for them.

2) According to DR. Spitzer, the primary reason for their wish to change is emotional disatisfaction with same sex relationships, followed by religious beliefs. This becomes especially apparant as they grow older.

3) No I do not, but I have known people that made the change. If you read Dr. Spitzer's work you'll find that many adolescents are confused about their sexual orientation, but typically go heterosexual as time goes on. It's pretty obvious to me that behaviour is age dependent, and behavior can be changed --maybe not so obvious to others though.

1) I believe many of them want and need help. I'll be honest when I say I have a religious opinion on the subject, but I don't have a right to make somebody else's decision for them.

2) According to DR. Spitzer, the primary reason for their wish to change is emotional disatisfaction with same sex relationships, followed by religious beliefs. This becomes especially apparant as they grow older.

3) No I do not, but I have known people that made the change. If you read Dr. Spitzer's work you'll find that many adolescents are confused about their sexual orientation, but typically go heterosexual as time goes on. It's pretty obvious to me that behaviour is age dependent, and behavior can be changed --maybe not so obvious to others though.

Woody. Clear answers, thank you. Now then to the really big question!
Do you honestly believe that all homosexuals will burn in hell when they die?
Thanks again.

GP said:

Yeah man, Woody this is some of the most screwed up anti-gay rhetoric that I have heard outside of a Southern Baptist anti-gay rally.

I never heard of a SB anti-gay rally. Did you make that up? When and where was it held under the auspices of the Soutern Baptist organization? The SB church I used to go to must have boycotted it. :m:

There ya go Woody, three quotes from your divine book, all preaching brotherley love and acceptance. So, your anti-gay preach-fest went against the word of god. Congrats Woody, technically, you can burn in hell for what you just posted!

Perhaps you wish I would burn in hell. I don't feel that way about you though.

Woody. Clear answers, thank you. Now then to the really big question!
Do you honestly believe that all homosexuals will burn in hell when they die?
Thanks again.


I believe all unrepentent sinners will be there, and it's not what I want for them.

No, I never said I wished you'd burn in hell. However Woody, you have yet to argue against the quotes that I posted.

Homophobic: fear of homosexuality; exhibited mostly by religious nutbars who buy into the silly rhetoric of their cult leaders.

Some folks have asked some very good questions that you've failed to answer:

1. Why do you care if people are homosexual?
2. Why would a homosexual wish to change their sexual orientation?
3. Do you have any homosexual friends or family that want to reorientate?

I've asked: where's the empirical data that support the notion that people need reorientation or that it even works? Spitzer's research was flawed (I noted these earlier) but I agree his work wasn't "pseudoscience." It was simply bad science.

The "work" that groups like NARTH claim to do *is* pseudoscience, however, since they base it on false premises and assumptions. Moreover, they use bad science and refuse to acknowledge the lack of empirical data to support their premises and assumptions. In doing so, they wrap their supernatural beliefs in a thin veil of "scientific-sounding" terminology and misquoted research of others.

If gays want to pretend to be heterosexual to fit into their other social groups and cults, I've no problem with that. That's their problem. But when pseudoscientific assholes like the people at NARTH make claims that are unsubstantiated and based on false premises and assumptions, its called fraud.

These religious nutbars are conartists and fraudsters. They're pseudoscience nutters. And they seek only to promote/defend their own silly cult rather than genuinely care about people.

And you, who support them, are either ignorant, stupid, or homophobic. Or a combination of two or all three.

Regardless, your rhetoric is tiring and obviously bigoted.

May God curse all left handed people in their evil lifestyle choice.

Well, I can proudly say that I shut Woody down with my use of quotes from the sermon on the mount! w00t w00t, go brotherly love!

...and those evil people that still chose to eat shellfish in violation of God's law.
...and those evil people that fail to stone to death adulterers.

This whole subject has been in the news recently with the apparent splitting up of the Anglican community over the ordination of gay ministers. And in the middle of this debate, some woman doing "Thought For the Day" on Radio 4 - a five minute chat on some topic of the moment, from a religious point of view - started off her talk by referring to some vile crime when some guy got beaten to death because he was gay. I can't really remember everything she said, but at the end she was basically stating the claim that "God sees everybody as equal, and we all have to stand before His judgement, gay or straight." And I thought, "Erm, no, love - I think it's time you got with the programme and faced up to some facts. To whit: God hates poofs. All this debate going on about whether people who seriously cannot help which gender they happen to find attractive. Is there a compromise we can reach if we accept the Bishop is gay, as long as he isn't "practicing"? So, we basically come up with fact no. 2. Gay or straight, the main problem is God hates penises being put into anuses. Or mouths, I guess. It's fine, the Bishop can live in his loving relationship, but unlike any straight clergyman (and are there really that many of those in the Christian church?) he's not allowed to put his penis whereever he wants.

Anybody who comes back at me with "Hey, it's not about the penis - we hate lesbians too!" is .... well, proving my point, I guess.

Woody, I notice in your first post that apparently "rumours" were that some of these people had in fact reoffended, but they denied it. Thank God every Christian is totally trustworthy! ;)


EDIT: A miracle happened - today was the last day this was still available online, so I'm going to post the transcript. This material is copyright (c) 2006 the BBC.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/thought/documents/t20060621.shtml

Thought for the Day, 21 June 2006
Anne Atkins

Hate crime is as hateful as the name suggests. Jody Dobrowski was murdered, not for his wallet nor because he happened upon the wrong place at the wrong time, but because he was gay. A crime of chance or greed is undiscriminating, and anyone might have died in his place. But Mr Dobrowski's death was personal: attacked for his identity, assaulted for who he was, murdered for his very nature. Shockingly, if he had been different he would still be alive.

So under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, those guilty have been jailed for twenty eight years - and not a day too many... though twice as long as they would have received if their reason had been different: crimes prompted by race, religion, disability or sexuality now attract far heavier sentences. An understandable reaction, I realised when I heard of a man in America being dragged behind his car for a mile because he was black.

Suppose, though, his torturers had objected to his hair colour? Or name, or make of car? Would his death have been any less dreadful? Does motive make a murder so much more wicked? Hitler killed for reasons of race, religion, disability and sexuality, and his crimes still - and rightly - revolt us. But he also hated those who helped his targeted victims. Was it worse to kill a Jew than someone who - voluntarily and bravely - helped a Jew escape?

A lawyer in Mr Dobrowski's case is quoted as saying that "we are moving towards a saner society in which everyone's human dignity and personality, whatever his lifestyle, is fully recognised" - a surprising observation when, as one commentator has pointed out, if Mr Dobrowski had been heterosexual, his life would seem to have been valued as only half as precious.

So we no longer have a set punishment for a certain crime then, but a system that seems subjective in response to circumstances. It was recently the 20th anniversary of a case that caused outcry for similar reasons, when the perpetrators of the violent and terrifying Ealing vicarage rape were given lenient sentences because, the judge said, the victim's trauma "had not been so great". This was retribution based on reaction rather than reason: now we have a penalty apparently prompted by political correctness.

It's a far cry from the statue of justice on top the Old Bailey, blindfolded because she shows no partiality towards persons. Very different too from the origin of judgement itself, the justice of God. Whose ruling is so objective that it is the same for sinner and saint equally; who despite His particular love for some yet treats all alike; and who is so scrupulously fair that good and bad - of any race, religion, disability or sexuality - will face the same Judgement... and are offered the same escape from it.


copyright 2006 BBC

SW said:

Homophobic: fear of homosexuality; exhibited mostly by religious nutbars who buy into the silly rhetoric of their cult leaders.

That's your definition and it tells how you feel about it. The definition used by professional therapists is considerably different from yours. perhaps someday when you wish to join their ranks, you might want to look it up. Perhaps it will help you sound professional.

Some folks have asked some very good questions that you've failed to answer:

1. Why do you care if people are homosexual?
2. Why would a homosexual wish to change their sexual orientation?
3. Do you have any homosexual friends or family that want to reorientate?

It sounds like you're going off the deep end. Actually you failed to read my answer, and the very favorable reply from the one that asked it. I can imagine a therapy session with SkinWalker. Perhaps a sign on the wall that says " I'll talk and you'll listen." Perhaps you are capable of a dialogue, who knows?

I've asked: where's the empirical data that support the notion that people need reorientation or that it even works? Spitzer's research was flawed (I noted these earlier) but I agree his work wasn't "pseudoscience." It was simply bad science.

Flawed in what way? The point of his study was to show that it is at least possible to show sexual orientation can be changed through therapy. Is there any doubt of that after sampling 200 ex-gays? Especially the females who seem to be a lot better at it than the males. Is that any surprise? It isn't to me. Of the three lesbians I've known personally two of them worked out fine for sure. I haven't heard from the third, but she managed to go at least bisexual the last I heard from her.

The "work" that groups like NARTH claim to do *is* pseudoscience, however, since they base it on false premises and assumptions. Moreover, they use bad science and refuse to acknowledge the lack of empirical data to support their premises and assumptions. In doing so, they wrap their supernatural beliefs in a thin veil of "scientific-sounding" terminology and misquoted research of others.

The thing I find incredible is a psychiatric clinic that fails to produce any positive benfit to any patient yet maintains a business and has been doing so decades before the gay movement even showed up. How did they get referrals if they didn't help anyone? What a failed business model that would be. Your analogy is useless that compares a therapy clinic to some research facility on a federal grant. Could you imagine a medical or psychiatric practice staying in business that never helped anyone? They would be sued wouldn't they?

Apparantly you don't understand how business works. Business works based on results. A government funded research program works the liberal way -- through tax dollar funding and political gimme. You understand that model better because it supports you. Perhaps that's why you chose it to make the comparison.

Well, I can proudly say that I shut Woody down with my use of quotes from the sermon on the mount! w00t w00t, go brotherly love!

I originally said that a homosexual that wants help should be allowed to receive it, according to his/her wishes. You disagree and quote the bible, therefore, I will not read or respond to anymore of your posts. Goodbye. You go to the phantom zone.

May God curse all left handed people in their evil lifestyle choice.

(great response kenny :D )

May He smite them all, and all right-handed people see how they are blessed of rnot being smitten, for they have chosen to be right-handed!

Give me a break!! Homosexuality occurs in nature... I have a boy dog... and trust me... he likes my sister's boy dog... a bit... too much.

Homosexuality is not a choice, and most homosexuals like being homosexual. If some want to change their orientation, let them, doesnt affect me.

May God curse all left handed people in their evil lifestyle choice.

What about people tht lose their preferred hand-of-choice, and adapt equally well to using the opposite hand?

What about people that want to be right handed out of convenience?


What about people like me: I'm a left-handed bow shooter and a right handed guitar player? If I were born 5,000 years ago in a hunting society, would I be called left-handed or right handed?

Your argument is truly stupid and I've heard it before from other stupid people. Stupid people say stupid things. Hence it is off to sock-puppet troll land for the both of you. You're on my ignore-list. Goodbye. :(

That's your definition and it tells how you feel about it. The definition used by professional therapists is considerably different from yours. perhaps someday when you wish to join their ranks, you might want to look it up. Perhaps it will help you sound professional.

The definition by professional therapists is simply "prejudiced against homosexual people." I expounded upon it because your bigotry is clear as is your intent. If the science of reparative therapy (there's no evidence that it is either) was what you wished to discuss, then you'd have started the thread in the Human Science (http://www.sciforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=69) subforum. Instead, you posted it here, in the Religion subforum, because your bigotry -your homophobia- is religiously grounded. My definition is appropriate and supported by your own actions. QED.

It sounds like you're going off the deep end. Actually you failed to read my answer, and the very favorable reply from the one that asked it.

Indeed I did fail to read your answer. The answer you posted approximately 10 minutes before I posted my own. I probably already had my reply dialog open by time you dropped yours. My apologies for being so careless. But I found your answers to be less than satisfactory. Perhaps there are gays that are dissatisfied with their sexual orientation. I'm sure there are. Spitzer's research suffers from several flaws (which I noted previously). One of them, which I may not have discussed, is that there is research that indicates that gays dissatisfied are so because of the stigma and pressure that exists in their lives against homosexuality. In short, gay-bashing, homophobic bigots who belittle them because of their religious superstitions and hate-filled rhetoric. In Shidlo & Schroeder's sample (2002), they found that of the gays that went through so-called 'reorientation therapy' did so because of homophobic attitudes toward them. Among their sample were individuals who had initially sought therapy for depression and anxiety only to be instructed to attend 'conversion therapy.'

Some participants were motivated to pursue treatment with the hope of saving their heterosexual marriage and keeping their children. Others entered conversion therapy through force and coercion. For example, some students in religious universities were told that noncompliance with the mandated treatment would be followed by academic expulsion or the termination of financial aid. One participant reported the following:

I am being forced to be in therapy [by a large religious university]. I sit there and agree with what he [the therapist] has to say to avoid confrontation. He is pushing me to marry a woman. My goal is basically just to graduate.

Of the 87% of the sample they studied (a full 176 individuals) reported that they failed to 'convert' back to a heterosexual identity. Only 13% perceived themselves as successful. Of that 13% (26 individuals), 6 refused to put a self-label on their sexual identity and 3 of this 6 were celibate!

This is the only study that I know of that bothers to attempt a quantitative look at so-called 'conversion therapy.' Clearly, such 'therapies' are problematic. Not only do psuedoscientific groups like NARTH fail to consider such data or discuss it with their consumers, but they flat out refuse to conduct any meaningful research of their own. Instead, they rely on one of the hallmark indicators of pseudoscience: anecdotal testimony. Useful in selling a product, but useless in measuring any real success.

Shidlo & Schroeder conclude with:We found evidence that many consumers of failed sexual orientation therapies experienced them as harmful. Areas of perceived psychological harm included depression, suicidality, and self-esteem. In the case of aversive conditioning and covert sensitization, harm included intrusive flashback-like negative imagery that was associated with serious long-term sexual dysfunction. Areas of perceived social harm included impairment in intimate and nonintimate relationships. Some religious participants also reported experiencing spiritual harm as a result of religious therapy.

We found that some participants also reported feeling helped. For a minority (4%), conversion therapy provided help in shifting their sexual orientation. Others (9%) found help in HBM techniques and were content with being celibate or else accepted an ongoing struggle to contain their same-sex desire. Participants also reported other therapeutic benefits, including an increased sense of belonging, improved insight, improved self-esteem, improved communication skills, and relief from talking about sexuality for the first time. Surprisingly, some participants who failed to change reported that their failure had been a needed proof, which freed them to embrace their gay/lesbian identity with less guilt.

In one of your answers (#3), you say:If you read Dr. Spitzer's work you'll find that many adolescents are confused about their sexual orientation, but typically go heterosexual as time goes on. It's pretty obvious to me that behaviour is age dependent, and behavior can be changed --maybe not so obvious to others though.

I've read Spitzer's work and much of the work that directly criticizes or compliments it. I'm leafing through his primary contribution to the subject in Archives of Sexual Behavior, printed in October of 2003, and I see no mention of adolescent confusion. Could you point us to another citation perhaps? Obviously there's one I'm missing.

More likely, you're relying on the homework I did for you by finding the citation and assuming he said something about adolescent confusion and hoping that no one else actually has a copy of the journal. And the section on page 411 under the heading "Good Heterosexual Functioning" isn't discussing "confusion" among adolescents in the context you imply. So share with us the correct citation so we can have some complete perspectives. Stop hiding it.. that's pseudoscientific.

Flawed in what way? The point of his study was to show that it is at least possible to show sexual orientation can be changed through therapy. Is there any doubt of that after sampling 200 ex-gays?

Yes. See the work of Shidlo and Schroeder above as well as the criticisms in my earlier post. In the very same issue (October 2003) of Archives of Sexual Behavior in which Spitzer published, there were many sound criticisms of his work, some of which are mentioned in my previous post (which, it seems you didn't bother to read). In addition, Spitzer himself said:Are the participants’ self-reports of change, by-and large, credible or are they biased because of self-deception, exaggeration, or even lying? This critical issue deserves careful examination in light of the participants’ and their spouses’ high motivation to provide data supporting the value of efforts to change sexual orientation.

The only thing Spitzer demonstrated is that, given sufficient motivation, gays can at least pretend to change their sexual orientation. In his methodology, Spitzer reveals that his sample included individuals who self-reported at least a rank of 60 with 0 being completely heterosexual and 100 being completely homosexual.

What!? 60!? So his cut-off for "gay" is someone who thinks they're attracted to the same sex more often than not? Where is the control for the anxiety driven, depressed man or woman that is simply scared of their androgenous thoughts and occasional curiosity about the same sex? Why didn't Spitzer study convergents who were completely homosexual?

The thing I find incredible is a psychiatric clinic that fails to produce any positive benfit to any patient yet maintains a business and has been doing so decades before the gay movement even showed up.

NARTH (if this is the "clinic" you are referring to) is not a psychiatric clinic. It is a religious cult center that does not adequately measure its work or invite oversight from peer review. Moreover, the methodologies they employ are suspect at best, pseudoscientific at worst. They should be shut down by the government, but the religious nutters have their dicks planted in so many politicians asses that to do so would by akin to biting the hand that feeds them via donations.

Pseudoscience clinics like NARTH exist to fleece money off of willing believers (and perhaps government "faith-based initiatives" funding). They're no different that the many new age clinics that do much the same thing with unfullfilled-promises of cures and prevention via snake oil like coral calcium, reflexology and magnetic therapy.

Reference Reminder

Shidlo, A., & Schroeder,M. (2002). Changing sexual orientation: A consumers’ report. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33, 249-259.

Spitzer, R. L. (2003). Can some gay men and lesbians change their sexual orientation? 200 subjects reporting a change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32, 403-417

What about people that want to be right handed out of convenience? I'm a left-handed bow shooter and a right handed guitar player.

Your argument is senseless. Why should God curse me for choosing my left hand to shoot a bow? THat is truly stupid. About the stupidest analogy I've heard. You both go to the igmore list. Goodbye. :(


Maybe they are basing it on scientific information?? :)


http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6773

http://www.isem.univ-montp2.fr/GE/Adaptation/Bibliographie/fauriePRSLB2004.pdf

Your argument is senseless. Why should God curse me for choosing my left hand to shoot a bow? THat is truly stupid. About the stupidest analogy I've heard. You both go to the igmore list. Goodbye. :(

It makes about as much sense as your silly argument that homosexuality is bad because your cult deems it so. Do *I* get to be on your ignore list now? Or do I have to say Jesus Fucking Christ on a Stick again?

It makes about as much sense as your silly argument that homosexuality is bad because your cult deems it so. Do *I* get to be on your ignore list now? Or do I have to say Jesus Fucking Christ on a Stick again?

You are not listening. May I quote myself AGAIN. This is the last time I will do so.

You said:

Some folks have asked some very good questions that you've failed to answer:

1. Why do you care if people are homosexual?
2. Why would a homosexual wish to change their sexual orientation?
3. Do you have any homosexual friends or family that want to reorientate?

wsionynw asked the question, and to my response he said:

Woody. Clear answers, thank you.

SW for some reason you think you speak for him, and you DON"T. Some people didn't ask the question, wsionyw asked the question, and I answered it. Not only did I answer it, I answered it well in his words -- the person that asked me the question. I have no use for a liar that can't even communicate. You are no professional therapist, you're just a plain and simple troll. Your prejoritive lieing accusations are unacceptable by anyone's standards for civil decency.

Point 2:

you said:

If gays want to pretend to be heterosexual to fit into their other social groups and cults, I've no problem with that. That's their problem.

That too is a lie. You have a big problem with it because they are making that choice for themselves, instead of you choosing otherwise.

Do *I* get to be on your ignore list now? Or do I have to say Jesus Fucking Christ on a Stick again?

Do you want to be on my ignore list? If that's the best you can communicate then you will go there.

I thought liberals were all about choice pro-choice to abort fetuses, pro-choice about lifestyle, etc. But your true colors really come through. You aren't about choice at all, you're about CONTROL. You want all you can get. You even want to control this forum. People are offended by your uncaring approach to humanity, and little wonder -- it's because you believe we are no better than animals. Are you not human as well? If so please act like it. Pretend to be even if you aren't.

Maybe they are basing it on scientific information?? :)


http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6773

http://www.isem.univ-montp2.fr/GE/Adaptation/Bibliographie/fauriePRSLB2004.pdf

Good links. By the way, Jimi Hendrix was a leftie. I'd start playing guitar left-handed if I could play like him in the long-run. In some things I am ambidextris and have no preferred hand. I probably ought to switch to right-handedness on a bow.

Woody,

But you didn’t answer my question –

From a religious perspective - why change orientation? What's wrong with being Gay?

Since Woody now has me on ignore (and if he doesn't he should), I'll speak to those that bother to read his bigoted thread.

Like I posted earlier, his motives and intent is clear. This is about his cult doctrine and its bigoted perspective on the fact of homosexuality. There is no evidence that gays choose their sexual orientation and much that says that it is a matter of little choice. If Woody truly had something scientific to discuss about the so-called "reorientation therapy" (aka "conversion therapy," aka "reparative therapy") he would have posted it in the Human Science forum. Instead, he chose the religion forum, because this is where the pseudoscience he's asserting as viable comes from.

Additionally, Woody appears to not understand what I said about not seeing his little answers to the questions the other poster asked. When I clicked reply, Woody's wasn't there. Moreover, I found his answers unsatisfactory regardless of what the other poster thought. It would seem that Woody is satisfied having a fan-base of one in this thread. Good for him.

But Woody shows his utter stupidity by calling me a liar because I've no problem with gays who want to pretend to be heterosexual. What knowledge could Woody possibly have that gives him enough insight into whether or not I actually believe this statement.

I'm tempted to say, "what a moron," but that isn't the case. Woody isn't interested in debating facts surrounding the pseudoscience of "conversion therapy." Instead, he's content to start a thread with his homophobic bigotry in rhetoric form then simply reply with ad hominem remarks and derisions about "liberals" and such. In other words, the dumb ass approach.

I'm more than willing to make use of ad hominem rhetoric, particularly with dumb asses who deserve it, but at least I'm also willing to actually read the debated literature and form an opinion on the facts. Woody has only his hatred for homosexuals which he disguises as a "concern" for the well being of the heterosexual trapped inside. What a bigoted dumb ass.

At least on ignore, I'll be able to counter his pseudoscientific nonsense without having to read past the complete ignorance and utter lack of education that responds to me.

The definition by professional therapists is simply "prejudiced against homosexual people." I expounded upon it because your bigotry is clear as is your intent. If the science of reparative therapy (there's no evidence that it is either) was what you wished to discuss, then you'd have started the thread in the Human Science (http://www.sciforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=69) subforum. Instead, you posted it here, in the Religion subforum, because your bigotry -your homophobia- is religiously grounded. My definition is appropriate and supported by your own actions. QED.

QED there you go again, on another CONTROL issue, and I'm really tiring of this.

Also, the definition by professional therapists is not what you claim. It is a rare but treatable condition for people that are struggling with their own homosexual feelings. You are no professional therapist. Whatta joke.

Indeed I did fail to read your answer. The answer you posted approximately 10 minutes before I posted my own. I probably already had my reply dialog open by time you dropped yours. My apologies for being so careless. But I found your answers to be less than satisfactory. Perhaps there are gays that are dissatisfied with their sexual orientation. I'm sure there are. Spitzer's research suffers from several flaws (which I noted previously). One of them, which I may not have discussed, is that there is research that indicates that gays dissatisfied are so because of the stigma and pressure that exists in their lives against homosexuality. In short, gay-bashing, homophobic bigots who belittle them because of their religious superstitions and hate-filled rhetoric. In Shidlo & Schroeder's sample (2002), they found that of the gays that went through so-called 'reorientation therapy' did so because of homophobic attitudes toward them. Among their sample were individuals who had initially sought therapy for depression and anxiety only to be instructed to attend 'conversion therapy.'

SW, you totally ignore the number one reason cited in the study for the re-orientation: They are emotionally dissatisfied with same-sex relationships because they were hurt in them. These patients view opposite sex relationships as more fulfilling. If you read some of the testimonials I supplied, you will understand that some of the reasons a person is homosexual have nothing to do with sex at all. I'm not going to re-quote it if you aren't going to read it.

Of the 87% of the sample they studied (a full 176 individuals) reported that they failed to 'convert' back to a heterosexual identity. Only 13% perceived themselves as successful. Of that 13% (26 individuals), 6 refused to put a self-label on their sexual identity and 3 of this 6 were celibate!

It's really a question of "what's the criteria for a success?" The criteria in the study is significantly reduced homosexual drive combined with enhanced heterosexual drive. Few people lie on the 100% hetero or homo profile under existing measures.

Developing the appropriate criteria is indeed difficult because the criteria for "homosexual" hasn't been clearly defined according to the researchers I've read. Is it the person, or is it the behavior they exhibit? What kind of behavior? How frequent? Under what conditions? For how long? These questions muddy the waters for any kind of reasonable approach to research, and they need to be clarified.

This is the only study that I know of that bothers to attempt a quantitative look at so-called 'conversion therapy.' Clearly, such 'therapies' are problematic. Not only do psuedoscientific groups like NARTH fail to consider such data or discuss it with their consumers, but they flat out refuse to conduct any meaningful research of their own. Instead, they rely on one of the hallmark indicators of pseudoscience: anecdotal testimony. Useful in selling a product, but useless in measuring any real success.

They have done an additional study that agrees with Spitzer's. I don't feel like finding it right now.

Shidlo & Schroeder conclude with:

In one of your answers (#3), you say:

I've read Spitzer's work and much of the work that directly criticizes or compliments it. I'm leafing through his primary contribution to the subject in Archives of Sexual Behavior, printed in October of 2003, and I see no mention of adolescent confusion. Could you point us to another citation perhaps? Obviously there's one I'm missing.

More likely, you're relying on the homework I did for you by finding the citation and assuming he said something about adolescent confusion and hoping that no one else actually has a copy of the journal. And the section on page 411 under the heading "Good Heterosexual Functioning" isn't discussing "confusion" among adolescents in the context you imply. So share with us the correct citation so we can have some complete perspectives. Stop hiding it.. that's pseudoscientific.



Yes. See the work of Shidlo and Schroeder above as well as the criticisms in my earlier post. In the very same issue (October 2003) of Archives of Sexual Behavior in which Spitzer published, there were many sound criticisms of his work, some of which are mentioned in my previous post (which, it seems you didn't bother to read). In addition, Spitzer himself said:

The only thing Spitzer demonstrated is that, given sufficient motivation, gays can at least pretend to change their sexual orientation. In his methodology, Spitzer reveals that his sample included individuals who self-reported at least a rank of 60 with 0 being completely heterosexual and 100 being completely homosexual.

What!? 60!? So his cut-off for "gay" is someone who thinks they're attracted to the same sex more often than not? Where is the control for the anxiety driven, depressed man or woman that is simply scared of their androgenous thoughts and occasional curiosity about the same sex? Why didn't Spitzer study convergents who were completely homosexual?

Yeah, Spitzer tried to be scientific about it. He made the point that the conventional measures are inadequate for determining homosexuality in this type of a study. In his presentation he requested that the psychiatric community come up with a better system than what's currently available. Are there any takers out there in the APA, or do they just continue to hide behind their ivory tower? As Spitzer himself said, he didn't even know an ex-gay community existed until he was confronted at an APA convention, and then asked to do the research.

SW, this is where I think we depart. It appears that you wish to sweep ex-gay people under the rug and forget about them because they are not politically expedient for you. I'm getting a strong impression of this. Do you wish pain and suffering on them so you can be "politically right"? If so, then our "discussion" is over.

NARTH (if this is the "clinic" you are referring to) is not a psychiatric clinic. It is a religious cult center that does not adequately measure its work or invite oversight from peer review. Moreover, the methodologies they employ are suspect at best, pseudoscientific at worst. They should be shut down by the government, but the religious nutters have their dicks planted in so many politicians asses that to do so would by akin to biting the hand that feeds them via donations.

And what about the psychiatrists (before 1970) that were applying reparative therapy before NARTH and the gay movement appeared? If it didn't help the patient, then what was the point? Where was a political pay-off back then? I hear the gay movement is really strong in the polical pay-off department, and even the APA leans that way with their money.

Oh, and there you go again, "they should be shut down by the government" because you can't control it. As Spitzer's study indicates, the patient's themselves said they were happier as a result of the therapy. Do you have something against their happiness? You probably wish and hope they were miserable to help your cause, you see. That's the impression I'm getting from you.

Pseudoscience clinics like NARTH exist to fleece money off of willing believers (and perhaps government "faith-based initiatives" funding). They're no different that the many new age clinics that do much the same thing with unfullfilled-promises of cures and prevention via snake oil like coral calcium, reflexology and magnetic therapy.

Reference Reminder

Shidlo, A., & Schroeder,M. (2002). Changing sexual orientation: A consumers’ report. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33, 249-259.

Spitzer, R. L. (2003). Can some gay men and lesbians change their sexual orientation? 200 subjects reporting a change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32, 403-417

Yeah I figured the snake-oil was coming. To that I ask you this -- how do you define success? In business, success is defined as a customer that is satisfied with your product or service. In a therapy business model the patient is a customer, and the therapy is a service. If the customer is happy with the result, then the business model works. I don't think it is possible to have a placebo therapy. How would that even work? Do you fool the customer into thinking they are happier? Isn't that something they know for themselves? They don't do the therapy in a day.

It takes about 2 years to see a visible change, and 5 years to complete the program. It doesn't work for everyone, even though they are extremely motivated. Some complain that it worked, but not to the extent they had hoped for. The risks are explained up-front. Some relapse into old behavior. The ex-gay support groups compare it to Alchoholics Anonymous. If someone slips, and this is expected to happen in many cases, then they are received in an open and supportive environment with others that are dealing with the same issues. Even the leader can fall, but they are given another chance.

It's a struggle of mind over matter. What's in control, the mind or the body? Christians believe the mind is greater than the body, and that, as such, it outlives the body even when the body rots. They also believe when a body controls the mind (as in the case on non-Christians) it rots with the body after death. Non-believers have little choice but to let their bodies be in control. As such, I can understand your frustration and disbelief in reparative therapy. You believe the human mind is too weak to make the change.

As a Christian, I can relate to the struggle the ex-gays are going through. You see, every person that becomes a Christian must re-identify themselves in the sex department. This is not easy, even for a person like myself that has opposite sex attraction. I was celibate for ten years before I married. Without marriage I would have remained celibate. There is no garantee that a marriage is going to work, and if sex is the only reason for the marriage then it will not work.

How is this a cure for homosexuality? I wasnt aware that homosexuality was a sickness... reminds me of x-men series...

Your argument is truly stupid and I've heard it before from other stupid people. Stupid people say stupid things. Hence it is off to sock-puppet troll land for the both of you. You're on my ignore-list. Goodbye.

Looks like I touched a nerve :D

Although to me it looks like God hating left handed people is as realistic as God hating gays... Sorry, 'fags' as your American bible belt nutter calls them.

Isn't it more likely that God does not hate anything, but humans hate things, therefor they claim that God hates the same things they do?

You might as well put me on ignore, Woody, as you never even give direct answers to any of my questions. Thanks for doing me a favour. Goodbye.

I still don't see a rationale for why Christians have a problem with homosexuality. The bible doesn't explain this and the references to homosexuality are dubious. Leviticus is the clearest but then in the same context if you eat shllfish you should be put to death or if you wear clothes made of mixed fabrics you should be put to death, etc. So Levitus must be ignored on the grounds of just sheer silliness.

And the myth makers didn't have the aleged JC mention the issue at all.

So why is this subject such an issue for some Christians?

SG said:

...and those evil people that still chose to eat shellfish in violation of God's law.

The God of the New Testament says:

On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour: And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending upon him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.

I like pork barbecue myself. :D


SG said:
...and those evil people that fail to stone to death adulterers.

How about the adulterous woman that was brought before our loving savior Jesus Christ:

http://209.197.66.175/kjvimages/john8-7.jpg

And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

I always wondered why those jewish pharisees didn't bring the man too. After all the woman was "caught in the very act of adultery." Doesn't that imply that a man was involved? They must have been real cowards.

----------------------------------------------------------------

SG, you gotta be careful how you use a bible, and just pull things out of context. For example:

"And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself." Mat 27:5

"Go, and do thou likewise." Luke 10:37

-----------------------------------------------------------------

BTW there is a sex-reorientation therapy especially for jewish people . It is called JONAH (http://www.jonahweb.org/).

Jonah ex-gay member's testimony (http://www.pfox.org/asp/newsman/anmviewer.asp?a=143&print=yes)

Here is a support group for parents of ex-gays called PFOX (http://www.pfox.org/).

Don't ex-gays have rights too? Look who is calling the kettle black:

Heterophobic discrimination (http://www.pfox.org/asp/newsman/templates/newstemplate.asp?articleid=274&zoneid=2)

Many gays are offended about this billboard:

http://www.pfox.org/images/PFOX_03.jpg

Talk about discrimination. Geeez.

Excerpt from PFOX (http://www.pfox.org/asp/newsman/templates/newstemplate.asp?articleid=273&zoneid=2):

ORLANDO, Fla., June 5 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Representatives from the world's largest outreach to those affected by unwanted homosexuality will join other pro-family organizations as President Bush endorses a federal amendment that defines marriage as between one man and one woman in a White House ceremony today. As the Senate plans to vote on the amendment this week, Exodus International plans to voice their concerns on Capitol Hill and says this vote is critical in the fight to preserve the institution of natural marriage.

" The lives of thousands of former homosexuals, like me, verify that homosexuality is not an immutable trait, therefore marriage is not a civil right to be casually granted to any group who demands it. Nor is it a relational right of passage to be awarded to those demonstrating a committed, emotional bond," said Alan Chambers, President of Exodus International. "Ultimately, this debate is about nothing less than the preservation of future generations.

Yep, the political stakes are high. No wonder Skin Walker sheds his snake skin about this issue. It's all about political control and mandated public brainwashing with lies and distortions from the left.

from ex-gay speaker Greg Quinlan (http://www.pfox.org/asp/newsman/templates/newstemplate.asp?articleid=272&zoneid=2):


"There is no biological evidence, not one repeatable study, not a
single genetic test that gives any validity to homosexual behavior as
a "born" trait. No one is born Gay, no one! Homosexuality is an
emotional disorder, a pathology that can be and has been effectively
changed when a person is highly motivated."

A woman once challenged him: "If we find a gay gene, then you will
have to accept it."

"No, I won't," he countered. "Last week I heard they discovered a
gene that causes hereditary breast cancer. You think that if there is
a gay gene, homosexuals should embrace their homosexuality.

Then she should accept her cancer, and embrace it. NO! That's
nonsense. If diabetes has a gene, we seek to cure it. If there is a
gay gene, let's work to cure it."

"Remember Scripture, 'Such were some of you.' It is a changeable
behavior."

Michael Reagan's (http://www.pfox.org/asp/newsman/templates/newstemplate.asp?articleid=271&zoneid=2) confession:

That’s why today I can honestly say on my show, “I admit it; I am homophobic. If I wasn’t homophobic before, I am today. I have a great fear of a homosexual community teaching my grandchildren that it’s OK to be gay even if you don’t think you’re born that way.”

Cris said:

I still don't see a rationale for why Christians have a problem with homosexuality.

You quote the OT which Jesus changed.

IN the NT the apostle Paul said, Rom 1:27

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

But that is not the point made in this thread. The point of this thread is as follows: shouldn't a group of society be respected and supported for their effort to change a behavior that they do not want regardless of their reasons which include their own emotional needs? Shouldn't they be allowed to make that choice for themsleves, instead of liberal nuts telling them they don't have that right and denying they even exist to start with?

The liberal left is cruel and unusual in this regard because of selfish political motivation. Ex-gays stand in the way of their agenda which goes far beyond civil rights for all people. Why can't they accept that some people aren't happy being "gay" and then help them? For an ex-gay person the word "gay" is an oxymoron. Even the english language has been changed to say: well if you're homosexual or "gay" you're automatically "happy" -- lies, lies, lies.

Interesting article:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/mg19125584.900

Interesting article:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/mg19125584.900

Hello Snakelord,

Yes, I've read about studies regarding older brothers. The waters remain muddied on that subject because of the criteria for determining what a homosexual is, and both sides of the debate agree they are inconclusive.

Again, what is the definition of "homosexual", and what is the definition of "change" in a therapy they choose for themselves?

what is the definition of "homosexual"

sexually attracted to members of your own sex.

Now let's be honest here Woody, according to you, everyone is seemingly having a hard time even knowing what homosexual means, and yet the minute "prophet yahweh" tells you he was once gay but now abstains from sex, you claim it proof positive of the existence of your specific space being. It's ludicrous.

I really don't need to say much because SW went to all the effort back on page 1, and you - dishonest, rude individual that you are - just started flinging insults at him. Ah well, such is life.

Careful SnakeLord, or he will put you on ignore :D

Aye, then I'll have no religious fundies left to talk to. Whatever will I do? :D

sexually attracted to members of your own sex.

So the definition of homosexual is that simple is it?

So, SL tell me where you draw the line on the Kinsey Scale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale):

The scale is as follows:

Rating Description
0 Exclusively heterosexual
1 Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual
2 Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual
3 Equally heterosexual and homosexual
4 Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual
5 Predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual
6 Exclusively homosexual


Examples:
1) Under your definition a 1 is a homosexual. A bi-sexual therefore is homosexual.

2) It's not uncommon for some kids to have some homosexual experiences; then after they mature they aren't attracted anymore. Under Spitzer's analysys there was a sizable percentage of 12 year-olds that weren't sure about their sexual orientation. Under your definition, they are all homosexual because at some time in their life they were attracted to the same sex, and it's all genetic, therefore they are a homosexual by definition even though they aren't attracted now.

3) Then there are prisoners that would really prefer the opposite sex, but it isn't available, so they have sex with each other. They, by definition, are homosexual aren't they, though given the opportunity they would prefer the opposite sex? They are exclusively homosexual, because they only have sex with other men. Anyone that's been in prison can tell you it's quite common.

4) I remember this guy I used to work with a long time ago that liked to watch heterosexual porno flicks. He was married and had kids. While he was watching this guy came up and offered him a blow-job. He enjoyed the experience and even bragged about it. He said he'd like to do it again. Was he being homosexual?

5) If some guy likes getting blow-jobs regardless of whether it's a man or a woman doing it, is he a homosexual? Who is gay, the sucker, or both of them?

6) Then there is the case of the drag queen.The guy I mentioned in example #4 picked up a drag queen, and went through the make-out routine, unaware that it was a male. When he took the drag queen to his hotel room he found out otherwise and decided not to go through with it. He was attracted to a man disguised as a woman, hence he found extremely feminine men sexually attractive. Under your rubric, he was homosexual wasn't he?

7) I remember in boarding school, a faculty member was gay, and he'd invite teenaged boys in his apartment and show them playboy magazines to get them sexually aroused. Then he would finish it with oral sex. Were the teenage boys homosexual?

Now let's be honest here Woody, according to you, everyone is seemingly having a hard time even knowing what homosexual means, and yet the minute "prophet yahweh" tells you he was once gay but now abstains from sex, you claim it proof positive of the existence of your specific space being. It's ludicrous.

OK, since everyone is making such a BIG FUSS about prophet yahweh, I'll just go and delete it RIGHT NOW. Big deal. :rolleyes:

Now you all have nothing else to say about that link. It's irrelevant anyway, just like your argument. That's how denial works -- pick the weakest point and write off the rest. Quite scientific of you all. Now how about the other dozens of links that have been provided? Will you deny that an ex-gay movement even exists? This should be quite ludicrous on your part.

I really don't need to say much because SW went to all the effort back on page 1, and you - dishonest, rude individual that you are - just started flinging insults at him. Ah well, such is life.

Well if he can't take it then he shouldn't dish it out, now should he? That's how I see it. Besides that he's your tag-team partner, so naturally you only see things his way.

Well if he can't take it then he shouldn't dish it out, now should he? That's how I see it.

Strange thing to say this... coming from Woody who puts people on ignore for disagreeing with him :D

So woody - what criteria does Christianity use so that it can condemn it?

So woody - what criteria does Christianity use so that it can condemn it?

The bible.

BTW, I saw your red-letter note to delete content, have I deleted enough? I can cut it back some more if you want me to. If you want to bar my membership to sciforums, then that's ok with me to. ;)

1) Under your definition a 1 is a homosexual. A bi-sexual therefore is homosexual.

Hate to tell you, but it wasn't my definition.

homo sexual = man sexual, (sexually attracted to members of the same sex).

2) It's not uncommon for some kids to have some homosexual experiences; then after they mature they aren't attracted anymore.

Most certainly. All the changes in the body confuse many youngsters.

Under your definition, they are all homosexual because at some time in their life they were attracted to the same sex, and it's all genetic

Under the definition, which certainly wasn't of my making, there is no mention whatsoever of genetics, nor was there any mention that once homosexual always homosexual.

therefore they are a homosexual by definition even though they aren't attracted now.

Well clearly not. Not attracted to members of the same sex = not homosexual. Duh.

3) Then there are prisoners that would really prefer the opposite sex, but it isn't available, so they have sex with each other. They, by definition, are homosexual aren't they

Yes and no. There are certainly those that are "attracted to members of the same sex" - and thus homosexual, and those that prove their superiority and dominance by sticking it to another man. Dogs do it all the time, (very often confusing owners that end up thinking they're gay). They're not gay, they're just showing their authority.

4) I remember this guy I used to work with a long time ago that liked to watch heterosexual porno flicks. He was married and had kids. While he was watching this guy came up and offered him a blow-job. He enjoyed the experience and even bragged about it. He said he'd like to do it again. Was he being homosexual?

It comes as no surprise to me to realise why you're as fucked up as you are. Every subject, every issue you tell us all a story about some guy you were friends with that got a blow job, or some gay guy at your boarding school that fucked all the other guys, or your grandma saying she never gave a blow job or some other thing that no normal sane person would even consider talking about and most likely would never even experience.

To answer your question, yes - if he was sexually attracted to that person of the same sex. If not, then no.. but I have yet to meet a heterosexual that would accept a blow job from another man. Do take note Woody that having a wife and kids does not specifically make you a heterosexual. Gay people can often try and take on a 'life of normality' generally from fear of retribution from people such as yourself. As for 'heterosexual porn flicks', it's well worth noting that they will contain dicks in them, and this man might well be getting turned on by the dicks and not the fanny.

5) If some guy likes getting blow-jobs regardless of whether it's a man or a woman doing it, is he a homosexual? Who is gay, the sucker, or both of them?

If they are sexually attracted to members of the same sex then yes.. they're gay. It doesn't matter who sucks and who takes, (unless you're Greek).

6) Then there is the case of the drag queen.The guy I mentioned in example #4 picked up a drag queen, and went through the make-out routine, unaware that it was a male. When he took the drag queen to his hotel room he found out otherwise and decided not to go through with it. He was attracted to a man disguised as a woman, hence he found extremely feminine men sexually attractive. Under your rubric, he was homosexual wasn't he?

If he thought the person in question was a woman? There are some very convincing shemales out there and so he would not be really at fault.

7) I remember in boarding school, a faculty member was gay, and he'd invite teenaged boys in his apartment and show them playboy magazines to get them sexually aroused. Then he would finish it with oral sex. Were the teenage boys homosexual?

Was it choice or not? Were the boys sexually attracted to this person of the same sex? These are important questions Woody.

----

Now you all have nothing else to say about that link. It's irrelevant anyway, just like your argument.

If prophet yahweh is irrelevant, why did you include his crap as "proof positive" of the existence of your god?

That's how denial works -- pick the weakest point and write off the rest. Quite scientific of you all.

I'm sorry, if you think "science" is going to sit idly by and accept the word of prophet yahweh, then you don't know what science is.

Will you deny that an ex-gay movement even exists? This should be quite ludicrous on your part.

But here is where SW's statements and data come into play. Such as:

(a) results were based on restricted, self-selected samples that represent a socially stigmatized population and thus capitalized on participants’ vested interests to manage selfimpressions, promote their values and lifestyles, overreport successes, and underreport failures;

(b) outcomes are ambiguous because participants’ idiosyncratic conceptualizations of sexual orientation, identity, attraction, and desire were not analyzed and research variables were not well conceptualized;

(c) some studies neglected to use fantasy and arousal to indicate sexual orientation;

(d) some results were based on therapists’ subjective impressions;

(e) comparison or control groups were not used;

(f) long-term, objective outcome results are unavailable; and

(g) dynamic factors, such as time, maturation, and contextual factors, were not analyzed to account for participants’ changes in sexuality and identity development process. Thus, the research base that supports the effectiveness of sexual reorientation is void of systematic, well-established methodologies that are needed to obtain valid scientific results (Wainberg et al., 2003).

Of the 87% of the sample they studied (a full 176 individuals) reported that they failed to 'convert' back to a heterosexual identity. Only 13% perceived themselves as successful. Of that 13% (26 individuals), 6 refused to put a self-label on their sexual identity and 3 of this 6 were celibate!


And so on. Take into account that SW took the time and effort to provide proper sources to back up what he had said. All you have provided is the word of prophet yahweh. That is totally scientific, as you must clearly understand and respect given your earlier statements concerning science? What you have done is completely neglected science, (something you seemingly view with distaste), to try and back up an assertion that you're seemingly having a hard time doing even without the help of science.

Well if he can't take it then he shouldn't dish it out, now should he?

I don't get what you're trying to say. SW killed you. That is the fact in this matter.

Besides that he's your tag-team partner, so naturally you only see things his way.

Utter nonsense. What you, (as a supposed understander of science), must respect is that he has the upper hand in this case simply because he provided sources better than prophet yahweh - a completely scientific thing for him to do. You on the other hand cursed everyone for being "unscientific", which shows outright your lack of understanding of what science is, all because good old prophet yahweh said nothing of value.

Needless to say, SW doesn't need a tag team partner.

But here is where SW's statements and data come into play. Such as:

(a) results were based on restricted, self-selected samples that represent a socially stigmatized population and thus capitalized on participants’ vested interests to manage selfimpressions, promote their values and lifestyles, overreport successes, and underreport failures;

False: As Spitzer stated at the very beginning of his study, he was testing the hypothesis that homosexuality can not be changed. All it takes is one subject that violates the hypotheis, and it has been disproved. Sampling is not unimportant when you are trying to prove something exists. Mutually exclusive events are very logically proven this way: Hypothesis: once homosexual, never heterosexual. One data point otherwise disproves the hypothesis. Quite logical. Pure and simple logic when you remove political emotions from the equation.

(b) outcomes are ambiguous because participants’ idiosyncratic conceptualizations of sexual orientation, identity, attraction, and desire were not analyzed and research variables were not well conceptualized;

THe problem lies in definitions: What is a male attraction and what is a female attraction? Are they based on sterotypes of what a male and a female are supposed to be. Example: a male is attracted to drag queens. Example: Is a transgendered person a male or a female? Are they homosexual after they are transgendered?

(c) some studies neglected to use fantasy and arousal to indicate sexual orientation;

Not Spizer's study. This area was examined very closely and the results are quite convincing.

(d) some results were based on therapists’ subjective impressions;

Not Spitzer's. The questions were selected before hand and the multiple choice answers catalogued before hand.

(e) comparison or control groups were not used;

As explained before by Spitzer himself, this is a totally unneeded and irrelevant step. It would be relevant if you were trying to prove the percentage effectiveness of reparative therapy, but that was not the purpose of his study.

(f) long-term, objective outcome results are unavailable; and

As Spitzer said in his study, no-one was included if they had less than 5 years since the treatment. So is ten to twenty years long enough for you?

(g) dynamic factors, such as time, maturation, and contextual factors, were not analyzed to account for participants’ changes in sexuality and identity development process. Thus, the research base that supports the effectiveness of sexual reorientation is void of systematic, well-established methodologies that are needed to obtain valid scientific results (Wainberg et al., 2003). ”

So in other words the homosexual community even disagrees on the immutability of homosexual orientation, "gay gene" predestination, whatever.

Hence Spitzer's study wasn't even needed to start with.

False: As Spitzer stated at the very beginning of his study, he was testing the hypothesis that homosexuality can not be changed.

87% reported a failure, 9% were celibate or refused to put a label on their sexual identity and the who is to say, (from the information gathered), that the remaining 17 were actually homosexual? As you yourself have stated, many teenagers etc go through 'strange moments' where body chemicals are in chaos.

Where is the data to show that the subjects had been homosexual, (sexually attracted to members of the same sex), for years if not decades and no longer had sexual attraction to members of the same sex? Perhaps they could control those urges to stop them from engaging in sexual activity with members of the same sex, but where is the data to show they just no longer had any sexual feelings towards members of the same sex?

As SW pointed out, even Spitzer didn't seem to know:

"Are the participants’ self-reports of change, by-and large, credible or are they biased because of self-deception, exaggeration, or even lying?"

Hypothesis: once homosexual, never heterosexual.

You yourself knows this is false. There are many teenagers that go through contradicting feelings during and after times of puberty.

THe problem lies in definitions: What is a male attraction and what is a female attraction? Are they based on sterotypes of what a male and a female are supposed to be. Example: a male is attracted to drag queens.

You're reaching in the hope that it will delay your inevitable failure. However, I will agree for now and say that unfortunately such data was not provided. How did Spitzer determine who was or wasn't actually really homosexual?

As SW points out:

"What!? 60!? So his cut-off for "gay" is someone who thinks they're attracted to the same sex more often than not? Where is the control for the anxiety driven, depressed man or woman that is simply scared of their androgenous thoughts and occasional curiosity about the same sex? Why didn't Spitzer study convergents who were completely homosexual?"

It seems anyone would do that stated they had at some time looked upon a member of the same sex with sexual attraction. As you might be aware by now, that includes a lot of teenagers, (current statistics suggest 60%). It seems he has picked a majority that confess to being just over half gay. What is half gay anyway?

As explained before by Spitzer himself, this is a totally unneeded and irrelevant step.

I'm sorry, you take a bunch of "half gays" and then when these people claim they're not so "half" anymore you call it a success? Please.

As Spitzer said in his study, no-one was included if they had less than 5 years since the treatment. So is ten to twenty years long enough for you?

So 5 years down the line you're at home with a woman and someone comes and asks you if you're still half gay? Interesting.

So in other words the homosexual community even disagrees on the immutability of homosexual orientation, "gay gene" predestination, whatever.

Perhaps not the homosexual community, but the bunch of half gays that Spitzer decided to 'test'.

The problem with Woody's interpretation of the results of Spitzer, which I've seen no evidence that he's actually read, is that he's willing to accept the anecdotal testimony recorded, perhaps even concocted, by the pseudoscience organizations that purport to 'convert' gays 'back to heterosexual' (as if they were heterosexual to begin with).

Woody, would rather ignore empiricism and methods used to obtain data and skip scientific methodology altogether, since it's easier for him to find data if he first forms a conclusion and then only looks at that data, however flawed, which supports the conclusion.

With regard to his inclusion of "prophet yahweh," this is his major flaw: Woody is willing to accept anyone's testimony that supports his conclusion without regard to their credibility or genuineness. He's now willing to toss out the prophet yahweh testimony since this "prophet's" credibility has been seriously questioned to the point that even Woody cannot accept. The problem is that the same holds for each and every one of his "testimonies." They do not become evidence. They are believers (p. yahweh just believes a little too much for Woody... i.e. UFOs & aliens) supporting their beliefs, and dismissed out of hand.

That leaves Woody only with the study he probably hasn't even read: Spitzer. And Spitzer did, indeed, discover that gays can at least appear to change sexual orientation. Sptizer's study was not longitudinal nor did it thoroughly explore the notion that motivations for wanting change may override their true sexual identity.

If a right-handed person has his hand amputated, he's still right-handed; but he learns to function with his left out of necessity. The same, according to Spitzer's research is true for gays that need to "become" heterosexual. If they wish to remain a part of their social groups and accepted by their cults or families, they learn to act as a heterosexual. There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE in the Spitzer study that shows these individuals actually change their orientation. Sptizer, himself, reveals that 75% of his "subjects" were referred by religious cult organizations (p. 406) and their data was self-reported! In other words, the study was biased from the start! Spitzer began with noble intentions, but ended up with a worthless study after all!

So, here's what the reader of this thread is left with:

Woody, a homophobic bigot who has an overwhelming desire to deride homosexuality in public forum using pseudoscience (NARTH et al) and flawed science (Spitzer).

The real topic of this thread is Why does Woody Hate gays?

Does he hope Spitzer was right? That gays can change? Did Woody have a dream about playing the skin flute one night and has a fear that he'll start redecorating the house?

SL said:

87% reported a failure

A failure to what? In whose words? Can you show me Spitzer's quote to that effect?

Spitzer's Report, p9 (http://www.ojc.de/dijg/pdf/bulletin_2_2001_spitzer_en.pdf):

Contrary to conventional wisdom, some highly motivated individuals, using a variety of change efforts, can make substantial change in multiple indicators of sexual orientation and acheive good heterosexual funtioning.

"Complete change - which is generally considered an unrealistic goal in psychotherapy - is uncommon, particularly in male subjects.

SL, if you are the therapist you claim to be, it seems you would realize that 100% change is not realistic for any type of therapy.

Nearly all of the patients were happy they went through the therapy and viewed it as a success.


Where is the data to show that the subjects had been homosexual, (sexually attracted to members of the same sex), for years if not decades and no longer had sexual attraction to members of the same sex? Perhaps they could control those urges to stop them from engaging in sexual activity with members of the same sex, but where is the data to show they just no longer had any sexual feelings towards members of the same sex?

As SW pointed out, even Spitzer didn't seem to know:

Spitzer went by their own statements Spitzer's survey (http://www.ojc.de/dijg/pdf/bulletin_2_2001_spitzer_en.pdf) p2.

The basic idea is simple. Study the self-reported experiences that claim to have acheived a change from homosexual to heterosexual attraction that has lasted at least 5 years.



SL:
"Are the participants’ self-reports of change, by-and large, credible or are they biased because of self-deception, exaggeration, or even lying?"

Spiter, p4

Three quarters of the men and half the women in the study were heterosexually married.

Spitzer, p5

Indeed, the primary motivation for participating in the study for almost all the subjects was their interest in providing evidence from their own experience that homosexuality can be changed and offer hope to others.

A liberal's worst nightmare -- it's called hope. :eek:

“ Hypothesis: once homosexual, never heterosexual. ”

You yourself knows this is false. There are many teenagers that go through contradicting feelings during and after times of puberty.

Don't preach to me what I already know, tell your liberal brethren.

You're reaching in the hope that it will delay your inevitable failure. However, I will agree for now and say that unfortunately such data was not provided. How did Spitzer determine who was or wasn't actually really homosexual?

Actually he used a modified version of the Kinsey scale, as previously noted. As I said before, without a consistent, absolute definition of the state of nature, it's impossible to construct a bullet-proof scientific conclusion. In my experince in engineering, a lack of consistent definitions results in circular arguments and ambiguous, incongruous conclusions. As they say, garbage in garbage out. A definition is an input.


SW said:
"What!? 60!? So his cut-off for "gay" is someone who thinks they're attracted to the same sex more often than not? Where is the control for the anxiety driven, depressed man or woman that is simply scared of their androgenous thoughts and occasional curiosity about the same sex? Why didn't Spitzer study convergents who were completely homosexual?"

Some of them were. The most remarkable transformations were among the lesbians.

SL :
It seems anyone would do that stated they had at some time looked upon a member of the same sex with sexual attraction. As you might be aware by now, that includes a lot of teenagers, (current statistics suggest 60%). It seems he has picked a majority that confess to being just over half gay. What is half gay anyway?

Well you said yourself that any percentage of same sex attraction deemd one a homosexual. Is there such a thing as half-gay?

SL:
I'm sorry, you take a bunch of "half gays" and then when these people claim they're not so "half" anymore you call it a success? Please.

Please what -- read the report? Here's what it says:

How often were the subjects able to achieve good heterosexual functioning?
WE defined this as requiring: last year in a loving heterosexual relationship. Satisfaction from the emotional relationship with their partner, at least 7+ (1-10 scale where 10 is as good as it can be and 1 is as bad as it can be). Heterosexual sex at least monthly. Physical satisfaction from heterosexual sex at least 7+ (the same 1-10 scale). Never or rarely (<20%) think of same sex during heterosexual sex. This was the case for 66% of the males and 44% of the females.

Good heterosexual functioning in 33 males who before change efforts were extreme on the homosexual indicators -- had no opposite sex attraction in teens year, never had heterosexual sex in their life, no heterosexual mastabotory fantasies, 95+ on the modified Kensey scale. In these 33 males, good heterosexual functioning was acheived by 67% of these subjects, much to our surprise.

SL:

Perhaps not the homosexual community, but the bunch of half gays that Spitzer decided to 'test'.

Except for the 33 I just pointed out in Spitzer's report. You obviously haven't even looked at it because it crushes your liberal walls of willful ignorance and self-fulfilling bliss.

SW said:

The real topic of this thread is Why does Woody Hate gays?

Those are your words not mine.

Actually I was thinking of this title:

Why does SkinWalker hate ex-gays and wish they didn't exist?

Why does he hate their happiness? With a puke-bag liberal around who needs a devil? Many of them are in liberal journalism. Buy their newspaper with a barf-bag:

http://www.mamud.com/airsicknessbags/images/mscherer_small.gif

With regard to his inclusion of "prophet yahweh," this is his major flaw: Woody is willing to accept anyone's testimony that supports his conclusion without regard to their credibility or genuineness.

What are you talking about? Yahweh Smaweh. Your favorite red herring is gone. Find another pacifier.

There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE in the Spitzer study that shows these individuals actually change their orientation.

Pure Bullshit.

Sptizer, himself, reveals that 75% of his "subjects" were referred by religious cult organizations (p. 406) and their data was self-reported! In other words, the study was biased from the start!

So what do you propose, a lie detector test? Religious cult organizations have the power you don't have, and the ex-gays made their own choice about changing.

Spitzer began with noble intentions, but ended up with a worthless study after all!

Not the kind of results you wanted to see anyway.

First you'd have to demonstrate that "ex-gays" exist. There is no empirical evidence to support this. The only thing Spitzer shows is that a sample of people, 75% of which is comprised of individuals referred by religious cults looking for validation of their claims, can at least pretend to be heterosexual to avoid homophobic attitudes of their social groups and families.

Another major fallacy that Woody employs is the association of "liberals" with that with which he disagrees. This fallacy is a multi-leveled non sequitur that begins with the belief that being "liberal" or "conservative" are somehow bad or wrong (I realize that Woody would probably never identify the label of "conservative" as "bad" or "wrong," but there are those that would, which is why I include it as an example of this fallacy); second, the fallacy includes the notion that because someone disagrees with his views (which he undoubtedly considers to be conservative) that they must, therefore, be "liberal;" also fallacious, is the pretense that being aligned with the conservative positions of the so-called religious right implies that he cannot be wrong; finally, this fallacy concludes with the idea that use of a perceived derisive term somehow validates his arguments, lending credibility to his implied "conservatism."

Woody's premise and intent throughout this thread has been one of deception and bigotry, as I demonstrated in an earlier thread, but some good has come from it.

We have a good exercise in critical thought displayed, with reasoned arguments (mine, I hope) applied in response to pseudoscience (Woody's arguments). Many of the key points I made, citing quantitative sources, were successfully rebuked by Woody at any time. Woody relied on the the bias of "testimony" (anecdotal accounts) provided by the psuedoscientific organizations (NARTH et al) themselves rather than looking for empirical evidence. The one study he eventually cited was the one I gave him (doing his homework for him), which turned out to be seriously flawed in terms of providing useful data in supporting the psuedoscientific claim that "conversion therapy" is a valid treatment.

The real nature of rants like Woody's, which disguise themselves as threads looking for serious discussion, is to allow the OP a place to practice their debate skills or attempt to find a venue to proselytize his cult beliefs. The very fact that many of the criticisms of the premises and assumptions that were presented here go unanswered are evidence that the goal isn't discussion or debate on a critical level or inquiry on an academic one. The real goal is to perfect and further the division that exists between religious nutters and secular society (reminder: "secular" doesn't mean atheist or lacking in spirituality). This point is evidenced by Woody's continued interjection of "liberal" in his attempts at derision as a means of creating a divide. The irony is that he wields that label as if it were 1) a bad thing; 2) a rigid position that precludes the individual from ever having "conservative" opinions.

In short, Woody's fallacious arguments demonstrate how to present oneself as both ignorant and credulous.

First you'd have to demonstrate that "ex-gays" exist. There is no empirical evidence to support this. The only thing Spitzer shows is that a sample of people, 75% of which is comprised of individuals referred by religious cults looking for validation of their claims, can at least pretend to be heterosexual to avoid homophobic attitudes of their social groups and families.


Ex-gay: Formerly homosexual, now married heterosexually, and very fulfilled in that marriage both emotionally and sexually. That's a pretty good start isn't it? It was Spitzer's idea anyway.

SL, if you are the therapist you claim to be, it seems you would realize that 100% change is not realistic for any type of therapy.

I can live with that. Instead I ask you to show me 50%.. nah, fuck it, 30%.. 20%.. 10%? How about 5%? Please, provide exact figures.

Nearly all of the patients were happy they went through the therapy and viewed it as a success.

All my patients are "happy" they went through therapy, even when they don't know why they're in therapy.


A liberal's worst nightmare -- it's called hope.

While 'liberal' means very little to an Englishman, I can only say that "hope" is not by any means a nightmare. Indeed every single weekend I "hope" I win the lottery.

Don't preach to me what I already know

Come on Woody.. the guy that has felt it his duty to preach continually during his stay here - to tell others what's right and wrong, what's true or not.. and you have the audacity to try and "preach" to others what they should "preach" or not? I would say: "don't be a hypocrite my friend", but you aint my friend.

As I said before, without a consistent, absolute definition of the state of nature, it's impossible to construct a bullet-proof scientific conclusion.

There goes Spitzer. Come now Woody, you know that "a lack of consistent definitions results in circular arguments and ambiguous, incongruous conclusions."

Given that you define homosexual as having no acceptable definition, the only plausible outcome, (given your statement), is that we're left with circular arguments and ambiguous, incongruous conclusions. If, like the rest of us, Spitzer cannot define what a homosexual is, what merit would his study have?

As they say Woody, garbage in, garbage out.

The most remarkable transformations were among the lesbians.

Nothing remarkable about it. Still, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. What was remarkable about it?

Well you said yourself that any percentage of same sex attraction deemd one a homosexual.

But now you're being dishonest, given the context. I did not say that a teenager with attraction to members of the same sex will always have attraction to members of the same sex. I've already stated this quite clearly.

Except for the 33 I just pointed out in Spitzer's report

33. I am impressed. So now please.. tell me what those 33 were thinking or actually feeling. Can't do it, can you?

You obviously haven't even looked at it because it crushes your liberal walls of willful ignorance and self-fulfilling bliss.

What gibberish. I'm being told about crushing from a man who justifies his gods and his own hatred of homosexuals based upon the dodgy conclusions of 33 people and prophet yahweh - who then dares tell the world: "You're being unscientific".

Ex-gay: Formerly homosexual, now married heterosexually, and very fulfilled in that marriage both emotionally and sexually. That's a pretty good start isn't it? It was Spitzer's idea anyway.

That's like saying "formerly European" now Asian. Nigel might now have a Japanese passport, speak Japanese, and take his shoes off at the door...

Also, Sptizer absolutely did not demonstrate (nor has any other study) that the "ex-gay" is now emotionally and sexually fulfilled in a heterosexual relationship. Indeed, at least two of the citations I provided demonstrated the obverse of this expectation in a large percentage of the "converted."

What are you talking about? Yahweh Smaweh. Your favorite red herring is gone. Find another pacifier.

Just because you deleted it doesn't mean it didn't exist. And it was hardly a "red herring." Your inclusion of a self described prophet of god who sends him UFOs when he calls them (which turned out to be weather balloons), is evidence of your credulous nature and willingness to accept whatever anecdote supports your conclusion, regardless of its source. At the very least, its evidence that you aren't willing to consider the source of supporting anecdotes as long as they support your conclusions.

There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE in the Spitzer study that shows these individuals actually change their orientation.Pure Bullshit.

Really? What was the evidence? Quote the line that demonstrated they actually changed their orientations and didn't just appear to change them.

So what do you propose, a lie detector test? Religious cult organizations have the power you don't have, and the ex-gays made their own choice about changing.

I propose an unbiased study comprised of a more diverse cross-section of society, not one heavily weighted with subjects referred by an organization with a vested interest in showing results. In fact, I propose an unbiased and critical look at these organizations themselves to see what their actual results are. To date, all we have are their self-reported results. Which is why groups like NARTH are pseudoscientifically based frauds against society.


Not the kind of results you wanted to see anyway.

You couldn't be more right. I want results that are unbiased that produce genuine data, not data contrived from the very organizations that stand to profit from favorable results.

Just because you deleted it doesn't mean it didn't exist. And it was hardly a "red herring." Your inclusion of a self described prophet of god who sends him UFOs when he calls them (which turned out to be weather balloons), is evidence of your credulous nature and willingness to accept whatever anecdote supports your conclusion, regardless of its source. At the very least, its evidence that you aren't willing to consider the source of supporting anecdotes as long as they support your conclusions.

What about the other subjects, especially those in public positions for the ex-gay movement? Do you just write them off as apparitions and UFOs? :(

Really? What was the evidence? Quote the line that demonstrated they actually changed their orientations and didn't just appear to change them.

The evidence in the study has already been provided. The measures for sexual orientation were in the area of sexual fantasies during masturbation, actual sexual relations, sexual fantasies during sexual intercourse, and the frequency of hetero v.s homosexual incidences for these measures. Do you have better measures than these? Let's hear it. Go ahead and show up Dr. Spitzer, a PHD psychiatrist, MD, and fellow for the APA.

I propose an unbiased study comprised of a more diverse cross-section of society, not one heavily weighted with subjects referred by an organization with a vested interest in showing results. In fact, I propose an unbiased and critical look at these organizations themselves to see what their actual results are. To date, all we have are their self-reported results. Which is why groups like NARTH are pseudoscientifically based frauds against society.

As Spitzer himself said, you or anyone else will have great difficulty putting together this kind of database.

What is the purpose of your study? The purpose of Spitzer's study was to show that homosexual behavior and the cause of it can be altered, like many other behaviors and their cause. The patients make the choice whether to change or not to change -- it is not forced on them.

According to Robert Spitzer's Interview (http://www.ojc.de/dijg/pdf/bulletin_1_2001_spitzer_en.pdf) page 5

Spitzer was asked about sexual re-orientation therapy: "What about the issue of the American Psychiatric Association to make the offering for the treatment of change unethical?"

Dr. Spitzer's response was:

I think this is absurd. It is ridiculous. Speaking to these people they clearly benefited from the therapy. To say that this is unethical, I think that is ridiculous.

SW, I think you are a ridiculous fraud against society.

You couldn't be more right. I want results that are unbiased that produce genuine data, not data contrived from the very organizations that stand to profit from favorable results.

Spitzer produced the data. Are you saying he's a cheat? He wanted to see if re-orientation could happen. Are you saying it did not happen and that Spitzer lied about the ability to re-orient?

BTW, I am joining the ex-gay forum to talk to some of these people myself. I really doubt someone can remain married just to make their families and friends happy about their "ex-gayness." Think about it. If you aren't happy in a marriage, you can't just fake it forever. Sooner or later your spouse knows what's up, and it will not be a fulfilling relationship for either one of you. A fake marriage just doesn't work, not in this day and time with the divorce rate topping 50%.

A fake marriage to fool family and friends about your ex-gayness would make a great plot for a soap opera. :cool:

SL:

Given that you define homosexual as having no acceptable definition, the only plausible outcome, (given your statement), is that we're left with circular arguments and ambiguous, incongruous conclusions. If, like the rest of us, Spitzer cannot define what a homosexual is, what merit would his study have?

He defined it on the Kinsey scale. Does that give you a problem? The results were measured and compared on the Kinsey scale. If it's garbage, then why would anybody use it?

I have a better answer though: "Homosexual" can not be defined because it doesn't exist to start with. It's a mental illusion that twists sexual fantasies into phsyical acts that are impossible to fulfill. The illusion is based on unfortunate experiences and misdirected behavior to resolve them. Homosexual is behavior, not the person that exhibits that behaviour. It's a complex bundle of unmet emotional needs and natural sexual urges that a person is only trying to meet the best way they know how.

It is an illusion based on beauty, and the fantasies of fulfillment surrounding beauty. The sexual satisfaction from a homosexual relationship sets the neurological pattern for future sexual behavior and fulfillment. Each experience re-inforces the pattern. But eventually they find their emotional needs are unfilled in the long-run. As they grow older and romantic relationships shift from purely sexual to companionship this becomes more apparant. Hence some of them see the need to re-orient. The median age of the Spitzer study subjects was about 42 years of age. The primary reason they gave for changing behavior was unmet emotional needs.

My 2 cents on it, and go ahead and shoot holes through it if you wish. This is my compliation of all the portraits of the homosexuals I have known about and heard about in my lifetime which is going on 53 years. I've worked beside them, had some of them in my family, and known them from church. All I can say is that they have a tough job trying to re-orient. Why should anybody make their life more difficult?

woody,

The bible. Which doesn't mention Lesbianism and only states that a man should not lie with another man. So we can assume Lesbianism is OK but that if a man is bi-sexual or simply occassionally homosexual then he should be put to death - is that correct?

But the bible really doesn't make a big thing out of homosexuality, and certainly virtually nothing in the NT. So why do so many Christians, you included, have such a problem with this?

BTW, I saw your red-letter note to delete content, have I deleted enough? I can cut it back some more if you want me to.That's fine, just stay away from the big copy-pastes when a link would suffice.

If you want to bar my membership to sciforums, then that's ok with me to. No way, you are far too entertaining.

woody,

Which doesn't mention Lesbianism and only states that a man should not lie with another man. So we can assume Lesbianism is OK but that if a man is bi-sexual or simply occassionally homosexual then he should be put to death - is that correct?

No. Jesus brought in the age of grace, which changes the consequences of these acts in our society.

Jesus said:

But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

There is no other marriage model.

But the bible really doesn't make a big thing out of homosexuality, and certainly virtually nothing in the NT. So why do so many Christians, you included, have such a problem with this?

Actually the bible, does make a pretty big deal out of all the sexual sins which include fornication, adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, pornography, whoredom, whoremongering, etc., etc.

People that live this lifestyle are assured a place in hell according to the bible. Hell is a pretty big deal to christians.

No way, you are far too entertaining.

That has been said before, and I'm glad you are only laughing with me instead of at me. Otherwise it would break my heart and embarrass me to tears. I'm only kidding of course.;)

SL said:

33. I am impressed. So now please.. tell me what those 33 were thinking or actually feeling. Can't do it, can you?

Yeah. I can tell you. They were thinking about getting married to the opposite sex. Gotta problem with that?

but you aint my friend.

I'm truely touched.

Come on Woody.. the guy that has felt it his duty to preach continually during his stay here - to tell others what's right and wrong, what's true or not.. and you have the audacity to try and "preach" to others what they should "preach" or not? I would say: "don't be a hypocrite my friend",

Well who did you mistake me for anyway?

There goes Spitzer.

There he goes saying things you don't like, because it makes you feel guilty about the people you lied to.

SL:

He defined it on the Kinsey scale. Does that give you a problem? The results were measured and compared on the Kinsey scale. If it's garbage, then why would anybody use it?

I have a better answer though: "Homosexual" can not be defined because it doesn't exist to start with. It's a mental illusion that twists sexual fantasies into phsyical acts that are impossible to fulfill. The illusion is based on unfortunate experiences and misdirected behavior to resolve them. Homosexual is behavior, not the person that exhibits that behaviour. It's a complex bundle of unmet emotional needs and natural sexual urges that a person is only trying to meet the best way they know how.

It is an illusion based on beauty, and the fantasies of fulfillment surrounding beauty. The sexual satisfaction from a homosexual relationship sets the neurological pattern for future sexual behavior and fulfillment. Each experience re-inforces the pattern. But eventually they find their emotional needs are unfilled in the long-run. As they grow older and romantic relationships shift from purely sexual to companionship this becomes more apparant. Hence some of them see the need to re-orient. The median age of the Spitzer study subjects was about 42 years of age. The primary reason they gave for changing behavior was unmet emotional needs.

My 2 cents on it, and go ahead and shoot holes through it if you wish. This is my compliation of all the portraits of the homosexuals I have known about and heard about in my lifetime which is going on 53 years. I've worked beside them, had some of them in my family, and known them from church. All I can say is that they have a tough job trying to re-orient. Why should anybody make their life more difficult?

*************
M*W: I've had many friend who are gay, and I've had a close relationship with them, both male and female. We've discussed many issues, and I've learned that trust and comfort is a big thing to them in a homosexual/lesbian relationship. It's not "attraction" per se, but a feeling of security. I can understand that. That's what all relationships need. In other words, sexual attraction is not on the top of the list.

Regardless of sexual identity, everyone needs a relationship where they can be comfortable and trust the other person. It's really not about sex.

Heterosexual relations are more likely to be about sex. How many heterosexual couples do you know who fight constantly, have sexual issues, and lack of trust? Just about every heterosexual couple I know has these issues! True, they may not be interested in the same sex at all, but they are unable to achieve a healthy relationship with the opposite sex. It tends to recur over and over again.

The happiest of all my friends are the gay ones. There's no games. There is trust, and there is comfort. What more could one ask of a relationship?

What about the other subjects, especially those in public positions for the ex-gay movement? Do you just write them off as apparitions and UFOs?

We dismiss them as worthless, since they are anecdotal and not empirical. But, I'll tell you what: count the number of "testimonials" you have and list them in a single post. I have no doubt that I can post even more of the opposing view. This is why anecdote becomes worthless as a form of evidence.


The evidence in the study has already been provided. The measures for sexual orientation were in the area of sexual fantasies during masturbation, actual sexual relations, sexual fantasies during sexual intercourse, and the frequency of hetero v.s homosexual incidences for these measures. Do you have better measures than these? Let's hear it. Go ahead and show up Dr. Spitzer, a PHD psychiatrist, MD, and fellow for the APA.

Apparently Spitzer shows himself up quite well, your appeal to authority (yet another logical fallacy) notwithstanding. The suggestions I had were based in part on the recommendations and information Spitzer gave in the Discussion section of his paper. These recommendations are complimented and mirrored by other independent investigators in the field, both before and after Spitzer's publication.

But rather than apply the measures that Spitzer did to subjects hand-picked by the religious cults that claim to be adhering to scientific rigor, let's apply the measures to a much larger sample size, randomly picked from the entire client-base. This is as any therapeutic program should be. At the very least, such a program should have oversight control from an outside entity that audits the caseload for success measures.

What is the purpose of your study? The purpose of Spitzer's study was to show that homosexual behavior and the cause of it can be altered, like many other behaviors and their cause. The patients make the choice whether to change or not to change -- it is not forced on them.

Never mind the many studies, a few of which I cited, which say otherwise: many clients *are* coerced and forced on some level to participate. Moreover, there are many studies which conclude that the attempts to "convert" gays is detrimental. True enough, Spitzer claims to have not revealed this, but we have to keep in mind that a full 75% of his subjects were hand-picked by the pseudoscience organizations that wanted their premises and assumptions validated. Spitzer is one study in a sea of studies that say the opposite. The consensus among psychological and psychiatric professionals is that "conversion therapy" is bunk and harmful.

The "purpose" of an alternative study (many have been conducted already) would be to counter the pseudoscientific claims by "conversion therapy" frauds like NARTH and Exodus and provide advocacy for clients should who may be receiving bogus treatment.

Spitzer was asked about sexual re-orientation therapy: "What about the issue of the American Psychiatric Association to make the offering for the treatment of change unethical?"

Dr. Spitzer's response was:

This little bulletin you found was published a full 2 years before Spitzer's study. Let's stick with the study itself, Woody. In it, Spitzer said:

1. "The participants in the study all believed that the changes they experienced were due primarily to their therapy. However, the lack of a control group leaves the issue of causality open."

2. "The issue of causality can only be answered by a study with random assignment of gay men and lesbians wishing to change their sexual orientation to either a treatment group (some form of reparative therapy) or a control group."

3. "This study indicates that some gay men and lesbians, following reparative therapy, report that they have made major changes from a predominantly homosexual orientation to a predominantly heterosexual orientation." (the study does not conclude that gays do change).

4. "[A] possibility is that all of the individuals constructed elaborate self-deceptive narratives (or even lied) when they claimed to have changed, at least to some extent, their sexual orientation."

5. "It probably is the case that reparative therapy rarely, if ever, results in heterosexual arousal that is as intense as a person who never had same sex attractions."

6. "I think what people will say - and they are probably right - is that this will be used to pressure gays to go into therapy. It will be used by the people who are bigoted." -from the very bulletin you are citing. I found this passage ironic and prophetic.

SW, I think you are a ridiculous fraud against society.

Lucky for society the ad hominem opinion of a single bigot only matters to his fellow bigots. Fuck you very much.

And to all that are reading this thread: it is clear that Woody is basing his bigotry on a study he hasn't even read. What a pathetic case he is.

Would you like me to email it to you, Woody?
Do you still want a link to your Prophet Yahweh's kookery?

SW said,

Moreover, there are many studies which conclude that the attempts to "convert" gays is detrimental. True enough, Spitzer claims to have not revealed this, but we have to keep in mind that a full 75% of his subjects were hand-picked by the pseudoscience organizations that wanted their premises and assumptions validated.

How were they detrimental? In whose opinion? Wouldn't they (the practitioners) be sued in our american sue-happy society? Got any reference links to the lawsuits that would SURELY exist if your statement is indeed true.

Why does it matter that the subjects were handpicked? Isn't that what Spitzer asked for to start with -- evidence that re-orientation can work in at least one human individual on the planet?

This is where I am confused in your responses. You ask for evidence for re-orientation and then look the opposite direction from the evidence. This appears to be a repeating pattern of denial that I find quite frustrating, not just on homosexual therapy but on many other matters of faith. It looks like you want it both ways: appearing to want evidence but refusing to consider it for yourself when it is given.

The "purpose" of an alternative study (many have been conducted already) would be to counter the pseudoscientific claims by "conversion therapy" frauds like NARTH and Exodus and provide advocacy for clients should who may be receiving bogus treatment.

There are many other worldwide organizations that are conducting this therapy what do you think about JONAH (http://www.jonahweb.org/).

BTW, What do you think about Alchoholics Anonymous? Is it bogus too?

Here is a list of organizations that participate in re-orientation therapy.

Re-orientation therapy (http://members.tripod.com/gaytostraight/newpage1.htm)

Rather than continue rehashing with yourself, SL, etc I will ask individuals that are ex-gay personally about their changes.

I propose you provide me with the guidelines for interviewing with them to determine their success. I do not want to be offensive to them, and you have a knack for being this way with people that don't think the same as yourself. I would like to keep the dialogue friendly and cordial with the "subjects" as you call it. I really hate it when you depersonalize people. It's so sterile, uncaring, and unfeeling.

I will agree with you upfront that it is very hard for a homosexual to re-orient. As one pastor said, in the approximately half-dozen homosexuals he has counselled maybe one of them converted but that conversion remains questionable. He has been more successful exorcising demons. :D

Thought you'd get a chuckle out of that.

Lucky for society the ad hominem opinion of a single bigot only matters to his fellow bigots. Fuck you very much.

You aren't very welcome. I have news for you, everyone in this world is prejudiced - and that includes you. If you disagree then you are just being the dishonest puke-bag liberal that you are.


BTW, yeah, give me the prophet yahweh link again will you?

He defined it on the Kinsey scale. Does that give you a problem?

Certainly not, but apparently it does give you a problem. It was you after all that stated we can't define "homosexual".

The results were measured and compared on the Kinsey scale. If it's garbage, then why would anybody use it?

Probably the same reason you used prophet yahweh's opinions as "proof positive" of the existence of particular gods. I suppose when you have nothing better, you just use whatever you can find in the hopes that it actually counts for something.

I have a better answer though: "Homosexual" can not be defined because it doesn't exist to start with.

See? Once again you state that 'homosexual' cannot be defined, in which case Spitzer clearly can't do any tests with homosexuals, because nobody can define what a homosexual is.. according to you.

The median age of the Spitzer study subjects was about 42 years of age. The primary reason they gave for changing behavior was unmet emotional needs.

A good time for a mid life crisis. How worthwhile would the data be? I mean c'mon, I know of literally hundreds of mid 40 year olds that have gone out one day and bought themselves a sports car or a villa in France. It doesn't make them French or a sports racer, (or the 20 year old they wish they could be once more). A homosexual going through a mid life crisis is hardly valuable data.

Yeah. I can tell you. They were thinking about getting married to the opposite sex. Gotta problem with that?

Marry? Sheesh they didn't waste time. Life long homosexual - hasn't even met a woman he fancies and he's already thinking about marriage?

There he goes saying things you don't like, because it makes you feel guilty about the people you lied to

? What are you blithering on about?

SL said,

Probably the same reason you used prophet yahweh's opinions as "proof positive" of the existence of particular gods.

That is not what I said. I see the communication here is no longer working.

Since nobody can get over prophet yahweh and look at the other evidence provided, since that is such an blinding show-stopper for everyone, this discussion is over.

OK the ex-gay movement doesn't really exist. We read about it in the news, but it's just a UFO like Skinwalker said. Nobody is getting treatment for sexual re-orientation. Mrs. Walls is just a fake that wasn't really a lesbian to start with, and now she is lobbying Washington to inflict misery on homosexuals. It's all a scheme to put all homosexuals through re-orientation therapy. Dr. Spitzer wants to be in charge of a homosexual re-orientation concentration camp where he can gas all those that fail. He even said he'd kill his own son if he was homosexual.

We should just hate ex-gays: hate-them hate-them hate-them because they violate the same sex marriage institution we want for them. They should forfiet half their life with AIDS to show their allegiance. Shame on them for wanting a different life than this. Shame Shame Shame.

OK, I hope you liked it. :D

Since nobody can get over prophet yahweh

Seemingly you as well, who picked that one sentence while ignoring the rest of my post.

SL said,

Probably the same reason you used prophet yahweh's opinions as "proof positive" of the existence of particular gods.

That is not what I said. I see the communication here is no longer working.

Since nobody can get over prophet yahweh and look at the other evidence provided, since that is such a blinding show-stopper for everyone, this discussion is over.

OK the ex-gay movement doesn't really exist. We read about it in the news, but it's just a UFO like Skinwalker said. Nobody is getting treatment for sexual re-orientation. Mrs. Wall is just a fake that wasn't really a lesbian to start with, and now she is lobbying Washington to inflict misery on homosexuals. It's all a scheme to put all homosexuals through re-orientation therapy. Dr. Spitzer wants to be in charge of a homosexual re-orientation concentration camp where he can gas all those that fail. He even said he'd kill his own son if he was homosexual.

We should just hate ex-gays: hate-them hate-them hate-them because they violate the same sex marriage institution we want for them. They should forfiet half their life with AIDS to show their allegiance. Shame on them for wanting a different life than this. Shame Shame Shame.

And the ex-gays that are now married -- they just did it to make family and friends happy -- you know the same reason anyone gets married, just ask Skin Walker.

And those wretched interviews with Dr. Spitzer's survey team: Well those ex-gays just lied about wanting to help others that are unhappy with their sexual feelings. Nah, they just want to pump them up with false hope so they can suffer the same way they suffered in re-orientation therapy. It's the sadist in them you see. It's all a scam to convert homosexuals into sado-masochists, and then unleash them on the general public for a gay bashing.

There. I hope you liked it. :D

i for one... want to here more... and i applaud those with the strenght of character who for various reasons have abandonned being gay, and living in complete sin...
How is abandoning who they are a strength of character? If anything, that just shows that they can be brainwashed into being anything else but themselves.
And how is homosexuality a sin? Technically speaking, sin doesn't even exist, as there is no universal morality. Even if there were, how could a natural phenomenon be morally wrong?

As I said before, I'm turning my attention to the ex-gay forum.

Well, looks like I got some e-mail.

Awww those hateful Gay activist bigots, there they go again .. From my e-mail:

Did you know that Exodus, Courage, Jonah, and other
ex-gay groups have experienced one of the largest
short-term influx of calls for information and
assistance in the history of the ex-gay movement, the
majority being from unchurched or nominally religious
folks, especially young adults, after a supporting
actress in a scene on one of the episodes of the HBO
series "Sopranos" just mentioned that there are,
"...churches that can cure them". Believe me, the
producers of the popular show are experiencing the
wrath of gay activism and their bleeding heart liberal
supporters. I'm confident that Richard and other
ex-gay groups will experience the same, both much
condemnation and inquiries. I don't believe Richard
could be bothered by whatever gay activists say about
him, since they are not his intended audience and it
is clear that the truth is not as important to them as
defending their way of life.

Ahh yes, hope is always greeted with puke-bag liberal hatred. You know the same 'ol same 'ol.

I'll keep everyone posted with the wonderful progress being made in re-orientation therapy, and all those conversions to christianity that will surely result. I just want to make sure everyone is as thrilled as I am. Happiness to all. ;)

I have professional guidelines (http://www.sexualidentity.blogspot.com) for administering re-orientation therapy. Only good enough for people with the highest ethics.

Several Psychiatrists are onboard:

Statements of Support
David Blakeslee, PsyD
Nicholas Cummings, PhD
Kenyon Knapp, PhD
David Pruden, MS
Michael Rosebush, PhD

I believe they have sciforums therapists outnumbered already. The big difference of course, is they are able to help people make the change they want to make, unlike the sore losers on sciforums that hate everyone they cant change to their puke-bag philosophy.

Seemingly you as well, who picked that one sentence while ignoring the rest of my post.


Marry? Sheesh they didn't waste time. Life long homosexual - hasn't even met a woman he fancies and he's already thinking about marriage?

Sheesh, who are you talking to. You didn't read the Spitzer study. The majority of the subjects that were in the totally gay category later got married. As I said before, the communication just isn't working. I'll keep you all posted on my investigation into gay re-orientation therapy. I'm looking for a secular version of it, but to little avail. Without the motivation of religion, perhaps it's not possible to re-orient.

I know positively that there are people that have re-oriented, gotten married, and have been very open about their struggle. It really is heartbreaking. I guess I'm the only on that feels that way. That's the impression I get here. I see how others have been treated here.

Anecdotes, anecdotes, anecdotes. That's all you keep going on about.

Woody, your a pathetic human being. Enjoy your gay friends who keep telling you their "ex" gay.

You didn't read the Spitzer study.

I've seen no evidence that you've read the study. Tell me, Woody, what was the last sentence on page 406?

SW said:

Woody, your a pathetic human being. Enjoy your gay friends who keep telling you their "ex" gay.

I feel likewise about you. I'd have to say you are one of the most hard-hearted people I've ever met. You show no human compassion at all.

Take the guy that was experimenting with Near Death Experiences some time ago. You and SL were just encouraging him to continue at the risk of his own life. The truth is you did not care, and neither did SL. What happened to the poor guy that was trying these experiments? Whenever I say yes you say no, whenever I say no you say yes. It's like I'm argueing with the devil himself, and maybe I am. I'd have to say you are a lot like him.

I've seen no evidence that you've read the study. Tell me, Woody, what was the last sentence on page 406?

That's because I haven't read a 400 something page study by DR. Spitzer. I read the executive summary that Spitzer presented at the APA convention. Do you have a link to the 400 page study? Are you telling me his executive summary is inconsistent with his study results? Are you telling me he went public before all his peers with deliberately falsified information? THat would be a disaster for his career wouldn't it? He would be dis-barred would he not?

The study is only a few pages long. That's the page number of the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior. There is no "bar" association for therapists, Woody. And, in the same issue of ASB, many of Spitzer's peers commented on his research, most of them pointing out the very flaws I mentioned in this thread.

Spitzer's work was good and even he recognized some problems. But it in no way supports the premises and assumptions that the pseudoscience organizations like NARTH and Exodus have with regard to "conversion."

Sptizer's main problem was that the study wasn't longitudinal. Such studies are typically funded by the organizations that hope to benefit from them, but, curiously, NARTH, Exodus, et al have shied away from such data. Perhaps it has to do with the lack of success that they were already painfully aware of. Among the ex-gay ministries that initially started, something like 8 of them closed because their directors remained homosexual. When NARTH began, the clients kept sleeping with each other, causing major problems. There are probably as many or more anecdotes of failures as there are successes (which is one reason to dismiss anecdotal evidence).

You attempt to paint me as without compassion, yet it is because of compassion that I refuse to accept the selfish motives of these ministries. The clients are real people with real problems aside from being homosexual. Homosexual is what they are in some cases. Bisexual is what they were in most of Spitzer's subjects. When they're told over and over that they are going to hell, they're abominations, that they're abherent to society and no better than child molestors, that they're behavior is unacceptable, that they're fags, that they can never gain entry in the "kingdom of heaven" because of who they are, these people become depressed, suicidal, experience undo anxiety, and develop a whole host of mental health issues based on the mythology of the cult they wish to belong to.

If that's what they have to go through in order to join the cult, that's their prerogative. However, if the cults want to make claims that they assert are scientific to further their agendas, this becomes fraud and the clients are being taken advantage of.

SW said,

If that's what they have to go through in order to join the cult, that's their prerogative. However, if the cults want to make claims that they assert are scientific to further their agendas, this becomes fraud and the clients are being taken advantage of.

That is not what anyone wants to go through. Don't kid yourself. Every human being that comes to the church has to struggle with sexual issues -- don't kid yourself there either.

The Jesus I believe in is able to care for these people. It has been an issue throughout the history of the church. As Paul said "such were some of you" that were in the church in his day (he was referring to homosexuals).

Before I go any further with this I have to be honest when I say I've seen people change from gay to straight and I've seen people change from straight to gay. That doesn't mean everyone can do it, or that they have to do it. My wife is a mental health nurse and she has seen likewise. So has my sister who is a social work counsellor.

Nobody has homosexuality all figured out.

You and SL were just encouraging him to continue at the risk of his own life. The truth is you did not care, and neither did SL.

Really? Give me the thread and I'll check.

And the professional opinions keep coming in. I'm going to be quite busy reviewing them:

Yet, Another Attempt To
Discredit The Spitzer Study Fails

by Daniel E. Byrne, Ph.D.

Most scientists would agree, particularly with the need for
comprehensive and accurate representation of scientific findings. No
one is benefited when science is misrepresented or misused to support
political agendas.

The real scholarly responses to the Spitzer study in this publication
came from three academics: Dr. Byrd, Dr. Yarhouse and Dr.
Hershberger. Each of these scholars, all of whom have immaculate
academic credentials, offers thoughtful responses to the Spitzer
study. Each makes a different but important contribution in their
analyses of this significant study.

Dr. Byrd's Response

From Dr. Byrd: "The Spitzer study essentially reopens the debate over
whether homosexuality is mutable. ...Indeed Spitzer provides evidence
that some gay men and lesbians are not only able to change self-
identity, but are able to modify core features of sexual orientation,
including fantasies. ...Spitzer's sample size was larger than those
of most prior studies. He carefully considered the components of the
homosexual experience and was considerably more detailed in his
assessment than were other studies. ...Virtually any bias in the
interview coding was eliminated by the near perfect interrater
scores."

Well, so much for SL's claim that the results were tainted by subjectiveness. :rolleyes:

Dr. Yarhouse's Response

From Dr. Yarhouse. Of the Spitzer study, Dr. Yarhouse notes "it has
given a voice to the disenfranchised within a minority group...the
Spitzer study supports the view that some people experience a change
in sexual orientation."

Dr. Yarhouse cites supportive research from Shidlo and Schroeder who
had to change the name of their study when they discovered the
possibility of successful change in some of their subjects (The
Schidlo and Schroeder study was originally title, "Homophobic
Therapies: Documenting the Damage." The title was later changed
to "Changing Sexual Orientation: Does Counseling Work?" because they
found that some people reported benefits to reorientation therapy
including a change of sexual orientation.

Shidlo and Schroeder are both gay, by the way.

Yarhouse notes that whatever methodological limitations might be
found in the Spitzer study--such as self-report--are similar to those
limitations found in lesbian, gay, and bisexual research as well.
Even the Schidlo and Schroeder study is subject to the same
methodological criticisms leveled at the Spitzer study.

Finally, Yarhouse concludes that the key to understanding the Spitzer
study is to understand what Dr. Spitzer intended, which was to study
whether anyone had ever experienced a change of sexual orientation.
Ironically, Spitzer's study was not so different from that of Evelyn
Hooker who asked the question as to whether or not homosexuals are
manifestly disturbed. Hooker did not prove that all homosexuals are
healthy, just as Spitzer did not prove that all homosexuals can
change their sexual orientation.

But Spitzer's study did answer the question, "Is it ever possible for
a person with a homosexual orientation to report change in the
direction of a heterosexual orientation?"

And the answer to that question is, "Yes."

Dr. Hershberger's Response

Dr. Scott Hershberger's contribution was perhaps the most unique
among the three scholarly responses. His chapter is titled "Guttman
Scalability Confirms the Effectiveness of Reparative Therapy."

Dr. Hershberger's contribution is unique because he is an
essentialist, a distinguished scholar and statistician who has voiced
his belief that homosexuality is biologically determined.

Apparently Dr. Hershberger questioned the legitimacy of the subjects'
responses in the Spitzer study and decided to subject the Spitzer
study to a Guttman scalability analysis to answer his question. The
Guttman test is a scalagram which is used to determine where or not
reported changes occur in a cumulative, orderly fashion.

Subsequent to the Guttman analysis, Hershberger concluded, "The
orderly, law-like pattern of changes in homosexual sexual behavior,
homosexual self-identification, and homosexual attraction and fantasy
observed in Spitzer's study is strong evidence that reparative
therapy can assist individuals in changing their homosexual
orientation to a heterosexual orientation. Now it is up to those
skeptical of reparative therapy to provide strong evidence to support
their position. In my opinion, they have yet to do so."

OOPS

Spitzer's research does not lend support to the gay agenda, an agenda
whose foundation is based on innate-immutable theory of
homosexuality. The Spitzer study essentially re-opens the debate on
the malleability of homosexuality. With the re-opening of the debate
in the academy comes the permission to conduct research.

And the recent Karten dissertation sponsored by Fordham University is
an example of such research. The Karten study takes the Spitzer
research a step further to determine what factors make a difference
in the transition from homosexual to heterosexual orientation.

I really don't understand why gays are so opposed to ex-gays. Doesn't a person have a right to be ex-gay if they want to? And then there are people that say "ex-gay" doesn't exist. I really, honestly, do not understand why the ex-gay movement would even exist if this is true. I've heard all the rationalisations, but they just don't add up. Example:

A booth representing ex-gay teachers at the National Education
Association's convention in Orlando drew protests Friday from gay
organizations that called it part of a plan to infiltrate the schools
with anti-gay teachings.

"They have a right to be there, but it's part of a larger strategy of
getting into schools and misinform people," said Wayne Besen,
executive director of Truth Wins Out, a Miami Beach-based group that
opposes ex-gay ministries.

At the Ex-Gay Educators Caucus booth, the groups' founder said the
caucus was created in response to the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and
Transgender Caucus, which also had a booth at the convention.

"We're here because they're here," said Jeralee Smith, a California
special-education teacher whose two-year-old caucus has about 30
members.

Now tell me why an ex-gay (that means people that are struggling or have struggled with same sex attraction), tell me why in the hell they would even want to be at the NEA and offer an alternative if reorientation therapy doesn't work. I'm sorry but this just doesn't add up. Did they lie about ever having same sex attraction?


Wayne Besen's group, TruthWinsOut and a couple of other advocacy groups had a news conference in front of the Orlando Convention Center protesting the presence of the ex-gay educator caucus. Today's Orlando Sentinel reports on the news conference and reaction from the ex-gay educators caucus.

Besen, showing his own behavioral problems, was escorted from the convention because of inappropriate behavior, the social misfit that he is -- he verbally attacked Dr. Thortmorton:

A little later, there was a verbal dispute near the ex-gay educator's caucus booth, one result of which was Wayne being escorted out of the convention center by some of Orlando's finest law enforcement. Word is that the F-word was flying. Be interested in Wayne's account of the fracas.

Look who is being intolerant and uncivil -- the liberal left of course, and the police have to do their job.

Well what can I say? The "truth-won-out" allright, and Besen was kicked out because of uncivil behavior.

http://www.hawaii.gov/lrb/rpts95/sol/sofseal.gif

State of Hawaii Report of the Commission
on Sexual Orientation
and the Law (http://www.hawaii.gov/lrb/rpts95/sol/cpt5b.html)
Chapter 5 Pt2
(MINORITY OPINION, continued)

E.Homosexuality is a Psychological Pathology Which is Not Equivalent to Heterosexuality; Many Homosexuals are Cured of Their Homosexual Desires Every Year, and Therefore, Homosexuality is Not an Immutable Trait, but is Instead a Conduct-Based Psychological Disorder.

1.Homosexuality is Not Equivalent to Heterosexuality and Homosexuality Should not Receive the Benefits and Protection Afforded Heterosexuality.

2.Homosexuality was Removed as a Pathology from the American Psychological Association in 1973 as a Result of Political, Not Medical or Psychological Considerations

3.Homosexuality Is Still Listed In The International Diagnostics Manual As A Psychological Pathology

Although the American Psychiatric Association de- listed homosexuality as a psychological pathology in 1973 on political grounds, the World Health Organization still catalogues homosexuality as a disorder. The International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision (ICD-9) published by the World Health Organization, contains a chapter on "Mental Disorders" including "Section 302, Sexual Deviations and Disorders." Section 302.0 deals with homosexual conflict disorder and lesbianism(12).

ref: Manual of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Injuries, and Causes of Death, 9th Revision, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland; Section 302 also deals with Section 302.1 entitled Zoophilia deals with bestiality; Section 302.2 entitled Pedophilia deals with sex with children; Section 302.3 entitled Transvestism; Section 302.4 entitled Exhibitionism; Section 302.5 entitled Trans-sexualism; Section 302.6 entitled Disorders of psychosexual identity dealing with feminism in boys and gender identity disorder of childhood; Section 302.7 entitled Psychosexual dysfunction dealing with psychosexual dysfunction, unspecified (302.70), with inhibited sexual desire (302.71), with inhibited sexual excitement (302.72), with inhibited female orgasm (302.73), with inhibited male orgasm (302.74), with premature ejaculation (302.75), with functional dyspareunia (302.76), and with other specified psychosexual dysfunctions (302.79). DO WE INTEND TO GRANT CIVIL RIGHTS ON THESE GROUNDS AS WELL? See the story of Martine Rothblatt, a lawyer who views the world without borders. She is legally married to her lesbian lover (the only ones in the U.S. because she used to be a man when she married her wife, and then after years of marriage the two decided it would be fun for them to spend the rest of their lives as lesbians. Martine received a sex change operation.) The story is a cover story to the National Law Journal, June 12, 1995.


4.Mental Health Professionals Say that Homosexuals Can Change

Dr. Gerard van den Aardweg (Ph.D in psychology from University of Amsterdam; taught in universities in Netherlands and Brazil) writes:

...Indeed since relatively few homosexuals seriously try to change and few therapists encourage them to do so, the notion that homosexuality is irreversible is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If nobody tries, nobody will succeed....Why would we take a fatalistic attitude toward the possibilities of improvement of homosexuality when an acceptable percentage improves substantially? (18)

ref: on Appendix G: How To Be Your Own Best Friend (New York: Lark Publishing Company, 1971, pgs. 22-23); Comprehensive Group Psychotherapy, edited by Harold I. Kaplan and Benjamin J. Saddock (Baltimore: The Williams and Wilkins Company, 1971, pg. 521); Dr. Charles Socarides, "Homosexuality," American Handbook of Psychiatry, 2nd edition, Vol. 3 (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1974, pg. 308); Samuel B. Hadden, "Treatment of Male Homosexuals in Groups," The International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, XVI, No.1 (January 1966, pg. 14); "A Way Out for Homosexuals," Harper's Magazine (March 1967, pg. 107); Changing Homosexuality in the Male (New York: McGraw- Hill Book Company, 1970); The Primal Scream (New York: Dell Publishing Company, 1970); Father John F. Harvey, The Homosexual Person: New Thinking in Pastoral Care (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987, pg. 76); "Homosexuality and Sexual Orientation Disturbances," Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry II, second edition, edited by Alfred M. Freedman, Harold I. Kaplan, and Benjamin J. Sadock (Baltimore: The Williams & Wilkins Company, 1975, pg. 1519); Homosexuality in Perspective (Boston: Little, Brown 251); Homosexuality (New York: Jason Aronson, 1978); What You Should Know About Homosexuality, edited by Charles W. Keysor (Grand Rapids: Zondervan


Dr. Ruth Tiffany Barnhouse (M.D. from Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons; clinical assistant psychiatrist at Harvard University; member of the Ethics Committee of the Massachusetts Psychiatric Society) writes:

The frequent claim by "gay" activists that it is impossible for homosexuals to change their orientation is categorically untrue. Such a claim accuses scores of conscientious, responsible psychiatrists and psychologists of falsifying their data(19).

ref: What Is a Christian View of Homosexuality?", Circuit Rider, February, 1984, pg. 12.


Dr. Reuben Fine (Ph.D in clinical psychology from USC; Director of the New York Center for Psychoanalytic Training; visiting professor at Adelphi University) writes:

I have recently had occasion to review the results of psychotherapy with homosexuals, and been surprised by the findings. It is paradoxical that even though the politically active homosexual group denied the possibility of change, all studies from Schrenck-Notzing on have found positive effects, virtually regardless of the kind of treatment used... (p. 84) Whether with hypnosis...,psychoanalysis of any variety, educative psychotherapy, behavior therapy, and/or simple educational procedures, a considerable percentage of overt homosexuals became heterosexual.... If the patients were motivated, whatever procedure is adopted a large percentage will give up their homosexuality. In this connection public information is of the greatest importance. The misinformation spread by certain circles that "homosexuality is untreatable by psychotherapy" does incalculable harm to thousands of men and women. (Pgs. 85-86.)(20)

SW and SL are promoting incalculable harm. Anyone ready for a lawsuit for these two charlatans?

ref: Psychoanalytic Theory," Male and Female Homosexuality: Psychological Approaches (Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, a subsidiary of Harper and Row Publishers, Inc., 1987).


Dr. Robert Kronemeyer (studied at Amherst College; Ph.D. in Psychology from Columbia University; served as Adjunct Professor at New York University; developed Syntonic Therapy) writes:

With rare exceptions, homosexuality is neither inherited nor the result of some glandular disturbance or the scrambling of genes or chromosomes. Homosexuals are made, not born "that way." From my 25 years' experience as a clinical psychologist, I firmly believe that homosexuality is a learned response to early painful experiences and that it can be unlearned. For those homosexuals who are unhappy with their life and find effective therapy, it is 'curable.'(21)

ref: Overcoming Homosexuality (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, Inc. 1980, pg. 7).

5.Studies Show That Homosexuality Can Be Cured By Psychoanalysis(22).

ref:See Appendix F for list of quotes from the following publications: Ruth Tiffany Barnhouse, Homosexuality: A Symbolic Confusion (New York: The Seabury Press, 1977, pg. 97); Dr. Irving Bieber, Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study (New York: Basic Books, 1962, pg. 301); Charles W. Socarides, M.D. Homosexuality (New York: Jason Aronson, 1978, pg. 405-406.); Morey, Tom, Committee to Study Homosexuality of the United Methodist Church, General Conference of Ministries, Chicago Meeting on the Sciences, August 1990, p.19.; Robert Kronemeyer, Overcoming Homosexuality (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, Inc., 1980, pg. 135); Dr. Toby Bieber, "Group Therapy with Homosexuals," Comprehensive Group Psychotherapy edited by Harold I. Kaplan and Benjamin J. Saddock (Baltimore: The Williams and Wilkins Company, 1971,); E. Mansell Pattison and Myrna Loy Pattison, " 'Ex-Gays': Religiously Mediated Change in Homosexuals," American Journal of Psychiatry (December 1980); Gerald van den Aardweg, Homosexuality and Hope: A Psychologist Talks About Treatment and Change (Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Books, 1986.); Homosexuality: Disease or Way of Life (New York: Collier Books, 1962

Houston MacIntosh, M.D., reporting a recent survey of 285 psychoanalysts who had analyzed 1215 patients found that:

*23% of their patients changed to heterosexuality;

*84% received significant therapeutic benefit.

This cure rate is comparable to the 27% cure rate reported by Bieber in 1962(23).

ref:Houston MacIntosh, M.D., wrote in "Attitudes and Experiences of Psychoanalysts in Analyzing Homosexual Patients," Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association (Vol. 42, No. 4, pgs. 1183- 1207).


I like this one:

D. Rather than legalize homosexual marriage or domestic partnership, or otherwise adopt a broad extension of derivative rights to homosexual couples, the State should identify specific, particular rights which might be extended to homosexual couples without undermining the institution of heterosexual marriage or imposing unreasonable costs upon the State. To make that determination, further study is necessary because this Commission failed to undertake that kind of examination. It may be that defining "family" to include "all persons who share a household" in some statutes would provide fair and appropriate protection without undermining the basic unit of society or imposing inordinate risks on children and marriage.

At least a few people in government have some common sense.

A review of the literature from the past reveals an interesting tidbit from behavioral psychologist Joseph Wolpe. Wolpe once reported an unexpected cure in a case of homosexuality. No--not with electric prods or lobotomy. In fact, his original therapeutic goal was to reinforce and affirm the 32-year-old patient's homosexual orientation and desensitize his Catholic guilt. This strategy, Wolpe later explained, was due to his belief at the time that homosexuality was biologically determined.

To the surprise of both the patient and Wolpe, the man gave up his homosexual lifestyle and relationship and began to date women. Wolpe explained this spontaneous reversal as a consequence of the patient's feeling more socially assertive, independent and accepted by men for the first time in his life. Four years later, a follow-up showed that the patient had gotten married, was reporting a very satisfactory sex life, and his wife was expecting a baby (24).

ref: Dr. Joseph Wolpe, The Practice of Behavior Therapy (Pergamon Press, 1969, pg 255-262). NARTH Bulletin (September 1994).

another version of same story from

The Removal of Homosexuality from the
Psychiatric Manual
-by Joseph Nicolosi (http://www.catholicsocialscientists.org/Symposium2--Nicolosi--mss.htm)
National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality

The Failure of the Mental Health Profession

Today, influenced by the popular assumption that homosexuality is in no way amenable to change, psychotherapists proceed to bring about "cure" by encouraging the client to accept his homosexuality. The most effective treatment is considered to be desensitization to feelings of guilt. This is done not because therapists necessarily advocate the gay lifestyle, but because they see no successful treatment.

Renowned behavioral psychologist Joseph Wolpe was faced with a Catholic client who felt guilty about his homosexuality. Wolpe had to decide which behavior to extinguish--the homosexuality or the religious guilt. Rather than the homosexuality, he chose to extinguish the guilt. This case is an example of the power of the therapist and a decision made all too often by the psychological profession.*
___________________
*Two interesting notes on this case: First, Wolpe said he made his decision based upon a belief that homosexuality was biologically determined. Second, the client later discovered heterosexual attraction on his own and was married, and Wolpe determined him to be cured of homosexuality.

OOPs sounds like a therapist really screwed up. Garbage in garbage out. Yike, I smell lawsuits coming against pro-gay therapists for misinforming their clients. This should prove to be quite interesting as time goes on. :eek:

SL said homsexuality is defined as:

sexually attracted to members of your own sex.

Might I quote from the National Law Journal:

Martine Rothblatt, a lawyer who views the world without borders. She is legally married to her lesbian lover (the only ones in the U.S. because she used to be a man when she married her wife, and then after years of marriage the two decided it would be fun for them to spend the rest of their lives as lesbians. Martine received a sex change operation.) The story is a cover story to the National Law Journal, June 12, 1995.
So tell me Snakelord, is Martine Rothblatt a homosexual being a lesbian with a "Y" chromosome. Is his/her wife a homosexual?

SL said:

I can live with that. Instead I ask you to show me 50%.. nah, fuck it, 30%.. 20%.. 10%? How about 5%? Please, provide exact figures.

OK the answer is somewhere between 23% to 27% for conversion to heterosexuality.

Houston MacIntosh, M.D., reporting a recent survey of 285 psychoanalysts who had analyzed 1215 patients found that:


“ *23% of their patients changed to heterosexuality;

*84% received significant therapeutic benefit.

This cure rate is comparable to the 27% cure rate reported by Bieber in 1962(23). ”


ref:Houston MacIntosh, M.D., wrote in "Attitudes and Experiences of Psychoanalysts in Analyzing Homosexual Patients," Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association (Vol. 42, No. 4, pgs. 1183- 1207).

I'd like to compare that to the detoxification results for Alchoholics Anonymous -- BTW alchoholism is genetically linked too.

There certainly are a lot of professionals out there that disagree with you and Skinwalker. I'm only getting started unmasking this deception from you two.

For example: you asked for a control experiment, which would only prove that the therapy made the change and rule out the people that changed on their own as in Dr. Wolpe's example patient. Dr. Spitzer's goal was to prove that change can be made regardless of the reason. Hence, a control experiment would dilute the result, and water down the conclusion: exactly what the political activists want.


Yarhouse notes that whatever methodological limitations might be
found in the Spitzer study--such as self-report--are similar to those
limitations found in lesbian, gay, and bisexual research as well.

Some of the LGB studies don't use control groups either, so you shoot down their pro-gay results with the same bullet. I can give examples if you want them.

Cris,

I am concerned my scientific results on successful sexual re-orientation therapy will consume too much band width. Should I start a blog instead?

Hi Woody,

Just interested to hear your thoughts on ex-heterosexuals. You know: married 20 years, 3 kids, only to up and leave overnight with a truck driver called Brian. Would you consider this kind of re-orientation to be successful? Naturally, these individuals have to make a lot of sacrifices in order to realise their true identity - the internal pressures must be phenomenal.

What do you think?

Here's an interesting presentation on DSM, used to classify mental disorders. It is only the start for psychiatirc treatment, not the end all.

As you may recall in this thread, the DSM on homosexual behavior was declassified from a mental disorder in 1974:

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/p030473.html

Though homosexual behavior has been removed from the directly classified list, it is still treated as "other disorders" by practioners in the the psychiatric community.

From the Zur Institutute: (http://www.drzur.com/dsmcritique.html)

One telling example is the declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder. Homosexuality was listed as a mental disorder in the DSM until 1974, when gay activists demonstrated in front of the American Psychiatric Association Convention. The APA's 1974 vote showed 5,854 members supporting and 3,810 opposing the disorder's removal from the manual. At that time, the American Psychiatric Association made headlines by announcing that it had decided homosexuality was no longer a mental illness. Voting on what constitutes mental illness is truly bizarre and, needless to say, is political and unscientific
3,810 practitioners opposed the removal in 1974, So tell me Snakelord and Skinwalker, were they incompetent to practice psychiatry?

On the surface, this appears to be intimidating coercion on the part of gay activists to infuse "political correctness" into the therapy process. As I said before -- politics before the patient , and therapy by coup d'etat. Why can't psychiatrists just do their job and be left alone by these nuts?

Hi Woody,

Just interested to hear your thoughts on ex-heterosexuals. You know: married 20 years, 3 kids, only to up and leave overnight with a truck driver called Brian. Would you consider this kind of re-orientation to be successful? Naturally, these individuals have to make a lot of sacrifices in order to realise their true identity - the internal pressures must be phenomenal.

What do you think?

I have a step-nephew that left his wife and did the same thing.

You know, you never hear of anyone going through re-orientation therapy to change from heterosexual to homosexual, do you?

Here's a testimonial for you:

While I was single, our singles pastor related an incidence that happened with two lesbians that lived nest door to him and his wife and children. As it were, one of the women divorced her husband and moved in with a lesbian next door. She brought a pre-adolescent son with her.

Her lesbian partner treated him brutally when his mother wasn't around. The pastor recalled several incidences where the poor boy ran outside the house screaming as she lashed him and beat him severely with anything she could find for a whip. I don't know if social services got involved in this or not.

In the pastor's own words he said it was Too Much Hurt.

His account is one of the reasons I disapprove of homosexual adoption.

trivia from the Karten study (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1598889/posts):

With such data providing support for the efficacy of reparative therapy with some individuals, the question of the ethics of APA discouraging such therapy now becomes center stage. No longer can the opponents of reparative therapy state there is no scientific evidence of its effectiveness. More importantly, as reparative therapy is studied, perhaps it is time for APA to insist on data to support the efficacy of other therapies, including gay affirmative therapy.

The ethical route demands the following: clients should be informed of the possibility that they may be disappointed if therapy (for any reason) does not succeed, so they can make a rational decision whether or not enter therapy. Offering such a choice should be fundamental to any therapeutic endeavor, and is central to client autonomy and client self-determination. In fact, it is clearly unethical for any professional, informed by the literature and guided by evidence-based interventions, to deny the choice of therapy to those who are unhappy with their same-sex attractions and seek therapy to diminish those attractions.

Though such research into sexual reorientation may be viewed as politically incorrect, no longer can it be ignored. Sociopolitical concerns must not interfere with the scientist's freedom to research any reasonable hypothesis, or to explore the efficacy of any reasonable treatment.

Thus Karten's study, along with others, adds to the body of clinical and research data that conclude that homosexuality is more fluid than fixed. Indeed, the quality of such research, mentored by seasoned professionals, provides scientific evidence to refute the repeated claims of The American Psychological Association (APA) that there is "no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of reparative therapy as a treatment to change one's sexual orientation."

Some of the details from NARTH editorial (http://www.narth.com/docs/fordham.html)

Among Karten's most robust findings: treatment success is best predicted by a reduction in conflict regarding the expression of non-sexual affection toward other men.

Men who became more comfortable in expressing their thoughts and feelings to other men and those who became comfortable with non-sexualized touch demonstrated a significant advantage in treatment.

Researcher Under Investigation for gay gene research misconduct:

CFACR Investigatory Report (http://www.cfacr.org/pages/article.php?aid=415)

Case in point, Leslie Stahl. In the March 12, 2006 episode of 60 Minutes she presented a piece about science and sexual orientation . However, what Stahl conveniently left out of her piece and failed to tell the viewing public, is that her “expert,” J. Michael Bailey, has been exposed and charged for “research misconduct” concerning the research he is best known for on transexuality. Turns out Mr. Bailey received many complaints from the transsexual women he interviewed for his book The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender Bending and Transsexualism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Would_Be_Queen), saying that they didn't know he was using them as research subjects and that he distorted versions of their case histories that appeared in his book.

As a result of this, Bailey was under investigation for researcher misconduct in 2004, and ultimately resigned from his Chairmanship of the Department of Psychology [at Northwestern], after he was given sanctions and the investigation was final. To this day, controversy surrounds Bailey and his associates that Stahl interviewed for her piece

A coffin nail for Bailey:

“Psychologists used to believe homosexuality was caused by nurture — namely overbearing mothers and distant fathers — but that theory has been disproved. Today, scientists are looking at genes, environment, brain structure and hormones. There is one area of consensus: that homosexuality involves more than just sexual behavior; it's physiological,” said Bailey.

from the review:

The piece ends by Stahl showing another set of twins, this time as adults, where one is gay and one is straight. Not surprisingly, there is no mention of their father or how he may have influenced them. Which suggests that maybe a lack of a father, or powerful overbearing or weak mother did have some impact on their son's sexual orientation and that maybe it isn't all about genetics as they would like you to think. After all, if being gay is simply genetic and nurture plays no part, then once a cure is found no one will have an excuse for being gay. On the other hand, if the cause of homosexuality can be traced to nurture, environment and choice than we have an issue of morality which those who are immoral don't want to face.

[If homosexuality was genetic, than both twins in an identical pair would be homosexual or both would be heterosexual. This is not the case in Bailey’s examples, so it is safe to assume that homosexuality is not genetic to any significant degree. We also know that behaviors are not inherited (although some people may have genetic tendencies that make them behave in certain ways) they are chosen at some level. This is not to say that the choice is conscious or deliberate.]

Good Reasons to Change Gay Behavior:

Health Statistics (http://lc.org/cipc/CIPC_healthstats.htm)

When you look at the statistics, there should be no question that acting out on same-sex attractions is dangerous to your health. Here are just a few of the statistics you can share with friends:

• In 2000, the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that 49% of all AIDS cases were among homosexual men age 13-24.

• At least 50% of all new HIV infections in the US are among people under 25 years old.

• Homosexual men are 9 times more likely to contract the HIV infection than heterosexual men.

• Homosexual men and women are at a significantly higher risk of contracting incurable sexually transmitted diseases, including herpes and HPV.

• Homosexual women are at increased risks for certain cancers.

• Acting out on same-sex attractions also has devastating psychological effects, including increased drug and alcohol abuse.

Homosexual is behavior, not the person that exhibits that behaviour.

Is heterosexuality not a behavior?

It's a complex bundle of unmet emotional needs and natural sexual urges that a person is only trying to meet the best way they know how.

:p There is an enormous amount of people on this planet who have unmet emotional needs and natural sexual urges that often go unfulfilled. Guess how many of them are so-called heterosexuals?

It is an illusion based on beauty, and the fantasies of fulfillment surrounding beauty.

My, you are gargling!
Playboy, Penthouse, High Society, Club, Hustler, Barely Legal, Nugget, Swank, etcetera, etcetera...

All these are filled to the brim with heterosexual illusions based on beauty, which fuel fantasies based on that "beauty" ( :p ) that are likely to go unfulfilled because they are unrealistic and untenable.

You didn't mention anything about the false notions of femininity and unnatural standards of beauty that society is bombarded with daily. Did you forget about the heterosexuals? Conveniently?

The sexual satisfaction from a homosexual relationship sets the neurological pattern for future sexual behavior and fulfillment.
Each experience re-inforces the pattern.

You seem certain that you are only describing homosexuals, lost and confused and so far from what is natural and God-intended...

But eventually they find their emotional needs are unfilled in the long-run.

You're describing an enormous number of hetersexuals. I know some young men who would rather have a perfect-looking sex machine for a woman, who preferably has a small brain, and little to say. You know, someone you don't really have to invest alot of time or emotion in, just so long as they're available for that particular act.


Woody: you're amusing, fairly one-sided, and kind of annoying.

As you may recall in this thread, the DSM on homosexual behavior was declassified from a mental disorder in 1974:

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/p030473.html

Though homosexual behavior has been removed from the directly classified list, it is still treated as "other disorders" by practioners in the the psychiatric community.


A sizable minority of people enjoy eating sushi. However, sushi has a much higher risk of causing serious bouts of food poisoning than most other foods.

Does having a taste for raw fish that could harm or possibly even KILL you count as a mental illness then?

A sizable minority of people enjoy eating sushi. However, sushi has a much higher risk of causing serious bouts of food poisoning than most other foods.

Does having a taste for raw fish that could harm or possibly even KILL you count as a mental illness then?

Only if the fluke worms get into your brain. I read a story about a guy that frequented the sushi bar, and ended up with a terrible case of flatworms. I suppose a few flatworms swimming around in your brain would be hard to go un-noticed. :eek:

Is heterosexuality not a behavior?



:p There is an enormous amount of people on this planet who have unmet emotional needs and natural sexual urges that often go unfulfilled. Guess how many of them are so-called heterosexuals?



My, you are gargling!
Playboy, Penthouse, High Society, Club, Hustler, Barely Legal, Nugget, Swank, etcetera, etcetera...

All these are filled to the brim with heterosexual illusions based on beauty, which fuel fantasies based on that "beauty" ( :p ) that are likely to go unfulfilled because they are unrealistic and untenable.

You didn't mention anything about the false notions of femininity and unnatural standards of beauty that society is bombarded with daily. Did you forget about the heterosexuals? Conveniently?



You seem certain that you are only describing homosexuals, lost and confused and so far from what is natural and God-intended...



You're describing an enormous number of hetersexuals. I know some young men who would rather have a perfect-looking sex machine for a woman, who preferably has a small brain, and little to say. You know, someone you don't really have to invest alot of time or emotion in, just so long as they're available for that particular act.


Woody: you're amusing, fairly one-sided, and kind of annoying.

Yep, heterosexual pornography fits it to a T. You are 100% correct -- that kind of "heterosexual" behavior is also bad behavior.

Yep, heterosexual pornography fits it to a T. You are 100% correct -- that kind of "heterosexual" behavior is also bad behavior.

Perhaps you fail to see the bigger picture? I wasn't just talking about pornography.

What is the underlying basis for the images found in pornography?

The ideal of feminine perfection, of course.

You very strongly insinuated that homosexuality was based on a physical, sexual attraction. Physical beauty. That men or women are unable to have their emotional needs met by their own gender, only the opposite gender.

Most attractions between people are ignited by a physical attraction first, and perhaps possibly a superficial intellectual attraction. Of course it can be the other way around, but most often a person's looks and features are the first to be noticed and the first to catch someone's eye.

You failed to comment on the fact that many heterosexuals have relationships that come and go all the time. Some of them go through partners left and right.
This problem of "unmet needs" you describe is common to many people, hetero or homo or what have you. This isn't simply a "gay" problem.

Let me reiterate.

Woody: you're amusing, fairly one-sided, and kind of annoying.

I should probably take out the "fairly" though.

Only to be fair.

I really don't understand why gays are so opposed to ex-gays. Doesn't a person have a right to be ex-gay if they want to?

Most certainly. While I wont speak for others here - I can only say I don't really care who's gay, who isn't and who supposedly once was. You've dragged me down to some shit that means nothing to me, so to clear this up we'll have to take a quick journey back to the start..

People that want to change can be helped by the God of Christianity.

Proof Positive from NARTH

It prooves God is a real, life-changing force.

It was these statements I had issue with, as seen when I said: "you claim it proof positive of the existence of your specific space being. It's ludicrous."

Hopefully now you'll understand where my issue lies. I don't care who's gay and who isn't. I don't care about your ten thousand step uncles, brothers, wives, preachers lovers and best friends that got blow jobs off some other guy or ran off with a truck driver named Bob. I have come to accept that you live in the Twilight Zone. My issue is with the idiocy of your statements - trying to use prophet yahweh and some "dont be gay" group as even evidence, let alone "proof", of the existence of a specific sky being.

Let's get it straight: I have no qualms with gay people or supposedly ex-gay people. I am a tolerant person. Now, as we know you do have a problem with gays, women, and many many more - because you're an intolerant person. However, you can be that way - again, I don't care. But if you're going to make stupid statements, (as I have highlighted), you will be called on them.

One more thing..

Are there any secular success stories out there for changing sexual orientation?

Man.. science has changed women into men, men into women, and even into a combination of both. Top that.

SL said:

Man.. science has changed women into men, men into women, and even into a combination of both. Top that.

I see what it's changed you into -- an atheist. That tops all of them.

GB said:

You failed to comment on the fact that many heterosexuals have relationships that come and go all the time. Some of them go through partners left and right.
This problem of "unmet needs" you describe is common to many people, hetero or homo or what have you. This isn't simply a "gay" problem.

Yes, I am agreeing with you 100%. It is, indeed, the very same problem that heterosexuals have. I propose that nobody is homosexual or heterosexual, everyone is just plain sexual. I'm not implying they are bisexual.

Only to be fair.

Yes, I have presented a one-sided view. Other people on this forum are very willing to present the other side. I don't need to do it for them.

GB said:

Yes, I am agreeing with you 100%. It is, indeed, the very same problem that heterosexuals have. I propose that nobody is homosexual or heterosexual, everyone is just plain sexual. I'm not implying they are bisexual.

That isn't what it sounded like when you first were talking about "misplaced affections" on the part of the so-called homosexuals.

So we're playing chess, then? But with words? ;)

And what of the people who DO find emotional, as well as physical fulfillment in a partner of their own gender? You're saying these people don't really exist? They've all been secretly longing for the other?

That's what you seemed to be implying there.

But now, at least there's an acknowledgement of this being a problem for BOTH sides. I suppose that's a start.

Yes, I have presented a one-sided view. Other people on this forum are very willing to present the other side. I don't need to do it for them.

I never denied anything about people, that, as you yourself said, WANT to change their orientation. If those people are sad and sorry about their state and wish to turn over a new leaf, ( :rolleyes: ) fine. I don't care. They're seeking their happiness, I suppose.

You went beyond that, and insinuated that gay or same-sex attraction was driven by the physical only. And you were talking about every last one of them. You made no distinction between one person or the other. And you stated basically that no one can be satisfied chasing their own kind.

I pointed out that great multitudes of heterosexuals also go from one partner to the other, getting momentary satisfaction from this partner, and then moving on to other pastures, more or less, from boredom or what have you. They were unfulfilled.

And then you acknowledge that as well, only after your previous statement.

Saving face, perhaps? Or trying to?

I see what it's changed you into -- an atheist. That tops all of them.

Actually I was born an atheist and have always been an atheist.

Here's a testimonial for you:

While I was single, our singles pastor related an incidence that happened with two lesbians that lived nest door to him and his wife and children. As it were, one of the women divorced her husband and moved in with a lesbian next door. She brought a pre-adolescent son with her.

Her lesbian partner treated him brutally when his mother wasn't around. The pastor recalled several incidences where the poor boy ran outside the house screaming as she lashed him and beat him severely with anything she could find for a whip. I don't know if social services got involved in this or not.

In the pastor's own words he said it was Too Much Hurt.

His account is one of the reasons I disapprove of homosexual adoption.

Here's a testimonial for you:

Black people are much more likely to be criminals.
From the Bureau of Justice: ( http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/p04pr.htm )
About 8.4 percent of all black male U.S. residents between 25 and 29 years old were in a state or federal prison in 2004, compared to 2.5 percent of Hispanic males in the same age group and 1.2 percent of white males. Among male and female prisoners combined, 41 percent were black, 34 percent were white, 19 percent Hispanic and the rest were other races or two or more races.

As you can see, black people (negroes) are nearly 8 times as likely to be incarcerated as white people.

The most popular black music today is rap. Everytime I hear rap music, it glorifies violence and gang lifestyles, it portrays women as little more than sex objects, and it idolizes money and a very wasteful and frivolous affluency.

See this link for evidence of the degenerate black lifestyle: http://www.hhdb.com/hip-hop-videos/6/nelly_tip_drill
For the Christians, prudes, and those who are rightfully offended by this culture (black culture), I believe this video is the CENSORED version. Alot of the naughty womanly pieces are blurred.

I was even watching BET (BLACK Entertainment Television) one night, and shortly after they showed this video, they then ran televangelist Robert Tilton's show. You know, the guy who asks for a thousand dollars every other sentence. The guy that relocated from Texas to Florida after things got real hot with his first "ministry"???

BET: Black Entertainment Television. Apparently, this is what black people in America today think of as Christianity. Kind of like Burger King or McD's: send in a $$$, we send you a miracle. A wicked generation asks for a sign.
What can we say for the black generation?

To top it all off, we have disease, war, and famine galore ( a rhyme!) in Africa, that coveted holy land of the black people.

Gay people (faggots) may be AIDS-ridden motherf**kers destined to an eternity in that inferno called Gehenna (Hades, Tartarus, Sheol), but Afrika takes the cake!!!

The number of people in Afrika infected and dying of HIV or AIDS is TWICE that of all other countries in the world COMBINED. :eek:

His account is one of the reasons I disapprove of homosexual adoption.

And what do these FACTS do to your opinion of black persons?

Just wondering. :)

DISCLAIMER: No persons of an eventual African heritage were actually harmed in the making of that last post.

Well, no decent ones, anyway!


Sarcasm?

Yes, I've heard of it.

Only to be fair.

I usually am.

Here's a testimonial for you:

While I was single, our singles pastor related an incidence that happened with two lesbians that lived nest door to him and his wife and children. As it were, one of the women divorced her husband and moved in with a lesbian next door. She brought a pre-adolescent son with her.

Her lesbian partner treated him brutally when his mother wasn't around. The pastor recalled several incidences where the poor boy ran outside the house screaming as she lashed him and beat him severely with anything she could find for a whip. I don't know if social services got involved in this or not.

In the pastor's own words he said it was Too Much Hurt.

His account is one of the reasons I disapprove of homosexual adoption.This is ridiculous, Woody, to blame the violence the boy obviously suffered on the fact that his mother was in a lesbian relationship.
There is NO link between the hetero- / homo-sexual relationship and the predisposition of the person to inflict violence.

There are far too many cases of PEOPLE being abusive, irrespective of their sexuality.

Following your thought processes, imagine this story. A guy goes into a BK, and not a McD's for lunch. He then comes out and goes on a shooting spree.
Not a nice story - but do you now disapprove of BK on the grounds that the guy ate there before shooting people?

Of course you don't as there is no evidence of a correlation between the choice of where you eat and predisposition to violence.

The exact same can be said of your story! ;)

Following your thought processes, imagine this story. A guy goes into a BK, and not a McD's for lunch. He then comes out and goes on a shooting spree.
Not a nice story - but do you now disapprove of BK on the grounds that the guy ate there before shooting people?

Of course you don't as there is no evidence of a correlation between the choice of where you eat and predisposition to violence.

The exact same can be said of your story! ;)

Woody seems to apply this method of argument only when it's convenient for his agenda.

This is ridiculous, Woody, to blame the violence the boy obviously suffered on the fact that his mother was in a lesbian relationship.
There is NO link between the hetero- / homo-sexual relationship and the predisposition of the person to inflict violence.

There are far too many cases of PEOPLE being abusive, irrespective of their sexuality.

Following your thought processes, imagine this story. A guy goes into a BK, and not a McD's for lunch. He then comes out and goes on a shooting spree.
Not a nice story - but do you now disapprove of BK on the grounds that the guy ate there before shooting people?

Of course you don't as there is no evidence of a correlation between the choice of where you eat and predisposition to violence.

The exact same can be said of your story! ;)

So tell me Sarkus, does this sound like a healthy environment to raise a child in?:

*25-33% of homosexuals and lesbians are alcoholics (Kus, R. “Alcoholics Anonymous and Gay America.” Medical Journal of Homosexuality, 1987, 14(2), p. 254).

37% of homosexuals engage in sadomasochism, which accounts for many accidental deaths. In San Francisco, classes were held to teach homosexuals how to not kill their partners during sadomasochism . (Fields, Dr. E. "Is Homosexual Activity Normal?" Marietta, GA.)

*A gay newspaper survey, of nearly 8,000, found that gay couples lasted 3.5 years at the most, and lesbian couples lasted 2.2 years (P. Blumstein & P. Schwartz, American Couples, 1983).

*A recent study done in The Netherlands, which already has same-sex “marriage,” showed that the average homosexual relationship lasts about a year and a half.

*In 1988, a nationwide survey of 6,779 married couples by the federal government (J. Sorenson, Amer. J. Public Health, 1996, 86:35-40) established that, in traditional, heterosexual marriages, the average rate of domestic violence is less than 5% a year. But homosexuals cohabiting with one another reported far higher rates of violence: 20% to 25% per year (D. Ellis, Violence and Victims, 1989, 4:235-255).

73% of all homosexuals have had sex with boys under 19 years of age (Jay and Young. The Gay Report. Summit Books, 1979, p. 275).

And what do these FACTS do to your opinion of black persons?

Just wondering. :)

Well, Woody? Have my facts changed your view on people of African descent?

I read YOUR facts...

• Acting out on same-sex attractions also has devastating psychological effects, including increased drug and alcohol abuse.


This one was quite interesting. They don't appear to explain what the devastating psychological effects really are, other than two things that are very common among alot of young people in general. And alcohol IS a drug.

I'd like to know more about how same-sex attractions produce these devastating psychological effects, and if this is something that all gay people deal with, or only a certain number of them.

Well, Woody? Have my facts changed your view on people of African descent?

I'm originally from the south which has a higher percentage of african americans than most of the other states. The south had slavery.

There is a significant criminal element among african americans in the south, but I think it is more correlated to education than race. I can show you some places where some rough white trash lives too. Plenty of biker types and red-necks looking for a fight. Also some hispanic areas you wouldn't want to be in alone.

I think part of the problem is cultural --among africans it is ok for the man to fly the coop in a relationship. I think single mothers, especially young ones, this is where the poverty cycle begins, and it's so so common among african americans. Teen pregnancy forgoes education, puts a child in an environment with no father and abundant poverty, which leads to crime and violence. Last I heard more than half of all african americans were born out of wedlock. If this culture could change I think it would help a lot.

On the other hand we had an african american married couple living next to us that were some of the nicest people you'd ever want to meet. I liked them much better than many of my white neighbors. Reasons: they were christian, both were highly educated, both were from up north and well-cultured, they felt fortunate to live in the neighborhood and wanted to be good neighbors. I would choose them over your average white family anytime.

Um Woody, none of those sources are credible arguement pieces due to the fact that they are all over 10 years old. A report from 1979 is not as credible as a report from within the past ten years, you might want to find newer sources.

I can show you some places where some rough white trash lives too. Plenty of biker types
Presumably you mean white trash who were INCIDENTALLY biker types, or biker types who were incidentally white trash. Or were you implying that biker types are ipso facto trash?

Good Reasons to Change Gay Behavior:

Health Statistics (http://lc.org/cipc/CIPC_healthstats.htm)

When you look at the statistics, there should be no question that acting out on same-sex attractions is dangerous to your health. Here are just a few of the statistics you can share with friends:

• In 2000, the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that 49% of all AIDS cases were among homosexual men age 13-24.

• At least 50% of all new HIV infections in the US are among people under 25 years old.

• Homosexual men are 9 times more likely to contract the HIV infection than heterosexual men.

• Homosexual men and women are at a significantly higher risk of contracting incurable sexually transmitted diseases, including herpes and HPV.

• Homosexual women are at increased risks for certain cancers.

• Acting out on same-sex attractions also has devastating psychological effects, including increased drug and alcohol abuse.


Woody, that source is totally and completely biased! :confused: Its out of some Christian website that has no related links to its statistics and has a definate slant towards the far right rather then a less biased agenda.

The problem with HIV/AIDS contraction in both the hetrosexual and homoseuxal population is due to the fact that abstinence only programs are being forced on individual states rather than allowing states to teach more inclusive sexual education programs, including condom use during sexual intercourse rather then trying to "save it" for marriage. Here's some statistics:

• The primary reasons why U.S. teenagers have the highest rates of pregnancy, childbearing and abortion among developed countries is less overall contraceptive use and less use of the pill or other long-acting reversible hormonal methods, which have the highest use-effectiveness rates.

• U.S. teenagers have higher STD rates than teenagers in other developed countries—for example, England, Canada, France and Sweden—because they have more sexual partners and probably lower levels of condom use.

Source for those two- http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_teens.html

And the links between homosexuality and mental disease are mainly developed in the adolescence due to extreme prejudice suffered when he/she comes out of the closet, not because of inherent mental instability due to being a homosexual. Hell, one of my good friends is openly gay, and is one of the most stable people that I know, and personally I do take offense to your statistics from 1979 about 73% of homosexuals having sex with boys under the age of 19.

My gay aunt has three kids that she has adopted in her home city of San Francisco, she's an excellent mother, she serves on the PTA, her and her partner have been together for twenty-five years and counting, I don't see an issue with her adopting kids, either her or her partner. She's never raised a hand against her children ever, she is one of the most caring individuals that I know of, and she works as a social worker with battered women and their children. I doubt that she would ever harm one of her children.

My good friend came out of the closet five years ago, I've known him since I was six years old, and he hasn't ever been molested by anyone, nor has he gone out and had sex with anyone over the age of 20 (him being 19), although I'd rather not hear about his sex life, I already hear too much about my other heterosexual friend's sex lives to want to hear about his.

I really don't see why you're so anti-homosexual. If we're all made in god's image, then aren't gays/lesbians/bisexuals/transgenders made in "his" image as well? Really, I want you to show me one quote in the bible that says "gays are evil and shall be stricken from this earth" in the new testament, not the old testament.

On the other hand we had an african american married couple living next to us that were some of the nicest people you'd ever want to meet. I liked them much better than many of my white neighbors. Reasons: they were christian, both were highly educated, both were from up north and well-cultured, they felt fortunate to live in the neighborhood and wanted to be good neighbors. I would choose them over your average white family anytime.

Good for them. They sound like nice people, and I have no problem with them.

I was just using your own tactic of condemning an entire subset of the population because of the acts of a certain portion of them.

37% of homosexuals engage in sadomasochism

Even if that number is reliably truthful, that still leaves 63%, or nearly 2/3, who aren't interested in pleasure/pain eroticism. Should the majority of them be condemned for the practice of the minority?

I really wonder how many studies have been done to determine the number of S/M enthusiasts among homosexuals. How reliable were these studies?

It's not a good practice to rely on one poll or survey for a definitive conclusion on anything, especially not when studying trends in a population.

There has to have been at least two dozen studies to determine the incidence of homosexuality, starting with Kinsey. They all had different methods, goals, and criteria. How many homosexuals each of them found depended on where they got their subjects, what questions they asked, how they asked them (being a sensitive topic, some feel this is very important), and of course, how they interpreted and presented their data.

Not surprisingly, there was disagreement among the studies. Some had pretty high numbers, others had low numbers (which are usually the ones quoted by NARTH and the like to marginalise gays). And again, some of this depended on what the researchers considered homosexual, and how they viewed bisexuality.

In principle, I never give a whole lot of credence to studies that anti-gay organizations such as NARTH use to back up their claims. They, like many other political groups, pick and choose the information they want to use to support their beliefs.

And the links between homosexuality and mental disease are mainly developed in the adolescence due to extreme prejudice suffered when he/she comes out of the closet, not because of inherent mental instability due to being a homosexual. Hell, one of my good friends is openly gay, and is one of the most stable people that I know, and personally I do take offense to your statistics from 1979 about 73% of homosexuals having sex with boys under the age of 19.



And of the 73% who have had sex with boys under 19 (why 19???), how many of them 18?

So tell me Sarkus, does this sound like a healthy environment to raise a child in?:

*25-33% of homosexuals and lesbians are alcoholics [/B] (Kus, R. “Alcoholics Anonymous and Gay America.” Medical Journal of Homosexuality, 1987, 14(2), p. 254).The average in the US is around 8% of the population - but then homosexuals (either sex) generally have a hard time of it in the US from the bigotry that is rife in that society - so it is not surprising.
But I certainly wouldn't judge ALL homosexuals on anything other than who they are, not on some statistics.

*A gay newspaper survey, of nearly 8,000, found that gay couples lasted 3.5 years at the most, and lesbian couples lasted 2.2 years (P. Blumstein & P. Schwartz, American Couples, 1983).Do you know the average length of a hetero-sexual relationship where they are seen as a "couple"? It is probably around the same.
So again - you need to compare it to the equivalent stats for a heterosexual "couple" (and not just married people!). I can tell you from experience that I have not been in a relationship longer than about 18 months - but in several I have certainly been part of a "couple"!

73% of all homosexuals have had sex with boys under 19 years of age (Jay and Young. The Gay Report. Summit Books, 1979, p. 275).Funny - 'cos did you know that around 70% of heterosexual women have had sex with boys under 18! The other 30% didn't lose their virginity until they were older!

Woody - you can pick stats to fit your case - everyone can.
The point is that you seem to tar every person with the stereotypical brush that you are taught to.

Learn to judge individuals - not groups.

Funny - 'cos did you know that around 70% of heterosexual women have had sex with boys under 18! The other 30% didn't lose their virginity until they were older!

Woody - you can pick stats to fit your case - everyone can.
The point is that you seem to tar every person with the stereotypical brush that you are taught to.

Learn to judge individuals - not groups.

Don't expect Woody to give any real response to that.

I did the same thing with "facts" concerning black people that he did with facts concerning gay people, and all he did was tell me about this black couple that lived next door to him and how nice they were. What about a gay couple next door???

Oh. They were practicing S&M while beating their son/daughter to death.

No wonder. I guess I must be guilty.

I've changed my plea... NOT.


Woody: you're a fraud.

Don't expect Woody to give any real response to that.
I expect he's praying for inspiration.

In the meantime: Is This Morrissey's Favourite Website? (http://www.dullmen.com)

I'd like to imagine the old fraud spending many happy hours there (Morrissey, I mean. Not Woody.)

I expect he's praying for inspiration.

In the meantime: Is This Morrissey's Favourite Website? (http://www.dullmen.com)

I'd like to imagine the old fraud spending many happy hours there (Morrissey, I mean. Not Woody.)

Fraud???

You mock my namesake, "good" sir.

What giveth?

:mad:

Fraud???
In the affectionate sense, obviously. I didn't mean to blaspheme Stretford's very own Messiah.

The average in the US is around 8% of the population - but then homosexuals (either sex) generally have a hard time of it in the US from the bigotry that is rife in that society - so it is not surprising.
But I certainly wouldn't judge ALL homosexuals on anything other than who they are, not on some statistics.

The statistic is more like 2% to 3% in the US from all the sources I've looked at. You're using the Kinsey statistic which leans heavily toward prison inmate populations, and pro-gay PACS, which obviously have your ear:

The London Daily Mail released last week what it calls `the most exhaustive survey ever conducted into British sexual habits.' The most stunning finding was that only 1.1 percent of British men said they were active homosexuals, a figure similar to the most recent American polls" (World magazine, Jan. 29, 1994, p. 9).

Science magazine, July 3, 1992, reports a very recent French study that found only 4.1% of men and 2.6% of women said they'd had homosexual intercourse at least once in their lives. Only 1.1% of men and 0.3% of women said they'd had homosexual intercourse in the past 12 months (as reported in "Homosexual figures grossly exaggerated," AFA Journal, September, 1992, pg. 9).

and finally the U.S.:

The September 2, 1992, Dallas Morning Times (pg. 4C) reported on a "University of Chicago study aimed to be the most significant study [on American sexuality] since Mr. Kinsey's" and a related study by the National Opinion Research Center. The findings:


"...An estimated 3 percent of the population claimed at least one act of homosexual sex during 1991. Over the respondents' lifetime, 4.5 percent claim some such sex... The final conclusions from the University of Chicago's study may confirm a figure far lower than Mr. Kinsey's. They may also show that American sexual behavior is quite conservative. The mean number of sexual partners over an individual's lifetime is probably around six or seven" ("Study of U.S. sex habits may contain surprises").

So you start yourself out on a limb. But ok, the liberal media lies about it too.


Do you know the average length of a hetero-sexual relationship where they are seen as a "couple"? It is probably around the same.
So again - you need to compare it to the equivalent stats for a heterosexual "couple" (and not just married people!). I can tell you from experience that I have not been in a relationship longer than about 18 months - but in several I have certainly been part of a "couple"!

Are you talking about cohabs?

Funny - 'cos did you know that around 70% of heterosexual women have had sex with boys under 18! The other 30% didn't lose their virginity until they were older!

Yeah, ya know what's really funny: homosexuals usually refers to men, lesbians to women, but they are all called "gay" which is an oxymoron. Some are not gay at all but quite miserable with their unwanted sexual feelings. It's funny how the english means less and less as the diatribes increase more and more to the point where there really is no more intelligible discussion. Take the word "homophobic" for example. It no longer means anything, and look who uses it the most.


Woody - you can pick stats to fit your case - everyone can.
The point is that you seem to tar every person with the stereotypical brush that you are taught to.

Show me the stats that prove your point. Prove to me that the entire psychology profession is a fraud that can't be trusted anymore. That's what you'll prove to me if you are right. I'm getting more convinced of it everyday, regardless of what you find out. This psychologiist says this, that one says that, this gay is now straight, that straight is now gay. Geez what a bunch of confusion. What can anyone believe anymore? Where is the truth in all this confusion? Who's hiding it and why?

Therapists are going to have a worse reputation than CEOs and lawyers if this crap continues, and they'll end up having no credibility at all.

Learn to judge individuals - not groups.

I'm looking out for the kids -- what do they deserve?

GB said:

What about a gay couple next door???

What about my step-nephew that was married and now gay? He has the typical pissy attitude. Pissy pissy pissy. He always had the pissy attitude -- you know just snotty about everything. But he was always that way.

My wife had a friend that died from AIDS. She knew him many many years and is still good friends with his family. He was the same way as my step-nephew: Pissy Pissy Pissy.

And his gay room-mate was the same way. My wife sent them an invitation to come to our wedding. They didn't show up or even acknowledge our existence. They didn't have to come, but couldn't her friend just send a gift or something? I thought it was rather rude and uncaring, myslf.

I'm currently talking to some ex-gays on an ex-gay forum. They are so nice and polite. None of this attitude bullshit. One of them tells me her gay friends really came down hard on her. She had to part with them, and she was pretty upset about it, she thought they were real friends, but they weren't.

GB said: What about my step-nephew that was married and now gay? He has the typical pissy attitude. Pissy pissy pissy. He always had the pissy attitude--you know just snotty about everything. But he was always that way.

My wife had a friend that died from AIDS. She knew him many many years and is still good friends with his family. He was the same way as my step-nephew: Pissy Pissy Pissy.

And his gay room-mate was the same way. My wife sent them an invitation to come to our wedding. They didn't show up or even acknowledge our existence. They didn't have to come, but couldn't her friend just send a gift or something? I thought it was rather rude and uncaring, myslf.

I'm currently talking to some ex-gays on an ex-gay forum. They are so nice and polite. None of this attitude bullshit. One of them tells me her gay friends really came down hard on her. She had to part with them, and she was pretty upset about it, she thought they were real friends, but they weren't.

*************
M*W: Woody, methinks you doth protest too much. You claim your "step-nephew" is pissy, pissy, pissy, but he's your "step-nephew," and not a genetic relative of yours, god forbid that it should run in your bloodline! But, I do understand what you are talking about -- gays with pissy attitudes. I've worked with them, and they are pests, to say the least! They single us older women out to discuss such things as current fashion styles, job descriptions, love interests, and platonic lunch dates. You can't help but luv'em. They're so "you!"

I've never been as "pissy" as a gay man. In fact, I've been confidant to many gay men in my day, so I feel as if I truly "know" them.

If I wanted an honest opinion about my clothing style or business savvy, I wouldn't hesitate to contact a gay friend, because I would know undoubtedly that he would give me an honest appraisal. If I wanted to hear the lies one thought I would believe, I would contact a girlfriend. They tell you what you want to hear -- and not the truth! So, I can say without a shadow of a doubt, gay men can be brutally honest.

Being "pissy" is not an honest attribute, but let's face it, gay men can be "pissy." The phrase "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned," is exponetially factored for the gay man! A heterosexual woman may be honest, but not as honest as a gay man. She will try to placate the requestor whereas the gay man will relay the bloody truth. Is that so wrong? No! We heterosexual women compete with other heterosexual women, but we know there is no competition with gay men. We can trust them to the ends of the Earth! We may not "like" what they tell us, but we certainly "trust" their opinion!

I really don't know about your "step-nephew," but I can honestly say that being "pissy" is an attribute when it comes to honesty. Gay men hold the trophy for honesty, whereas heterosexual women find it difficult to be honest with other women.

All I can state at this point, is that you, Woody, are the pissiest prig on sciforums. Are you so very sure that you are not gay? I think you have a secretive fetish about homosexuals, and if you were given the least bit of a chance, you would like to turn some hunk over and stick your penis into his rectum and enjoy it... immensely! Something tells me that you are not the macho man you try to deceive to be on this forum! In fact, I would suspect that your wife might find this activity titilating. Have you ever considered a three-some with some macho horny dude? Even if you don't, my guess is that your wife would be willing to get fucked by a real man. Never underestimate the power of a long, supple dick. Wars have been won for less.

Should your wife like to experience ecstasy as only God could create it, I highly recommend the services of any young Puerto Rican gentleman who could undoubtedly take her to Paradise like no other.

Having been there and done that, I wish her well. And for you, Woody, I wish for you a cold, uncaring wench who would drain you of your manhood for a quick suck and spit. That's what you deserve.

Pissy pissy pissy.
1. You're a homophobe. This will make them pissy towards you. It's understandable.
2. You're a homphobe. This will cause you to interpret them as being pissy even when they're not being. You will actively look for pissiness as it will confirm your prejudices.

You simply aren't equipped to judge these things objectively.

GB said:



What about my step-nephew that was married and now gay? He has the typical pissy attitude. Pissy pissy pissy. He always had the pissy attitude -- you know just snotty about everything. But he was always that way.

My wife had a friend that died from AIDS. She knew him many many years and is still good friends with his family. He was the same way as my step-nephew: Pissy Pissy Pissy.

And his gay room-mate was the same way. My wife sent them an invitation to come to our wedding. They didn't show up or even acknowledge our existence. They didn't have to come, but couldn't her friend just send a gift or something? I thought it was rather rude and uncaring, myslf.

I'm currently talking to some ex-gays on an ex-gay forum. They are so nice and polite. None of this attitude bullshit. One of them tells me her gay friends really came down hard on her. She had to part with them, and she was pretty upset about it, she thought they were real friends, but they weren't.

Hypocrite.

FRAUD.

Hypocrite.

And you do know it.

FRAUD.


:mad:

Fraud.

fraud.

Get the picture Woody?

No. Thou knowst not.

FRAUD.

Hypocrite.

FRAUD.

Hypocrite.

And you do know it.

FRAUD.


:mad:

So I guess you are saying I made it all up. It's really hard for me to interpret anything meaningful from your diatribes. One thing I've noticed about homosexuals on the television debate shows like Rickki Lake -- man these guys just can't control themelves. It doesn't matter what they say when they're going ape-shit -- their actions speak for them. Are you gay too?

BTW, I'm participating on an ex-gay forum. The ex-gays and ex-lesbians over there are laughing about the reports that say it's impossible for a homosexual to change -- reports pandered by the pro-gay community in their own defense:

Born Gay (http://www.borndifferent.org/home.html)

I noticed one of their prized links concerns Dr. Baile'ys 60 minutes interview (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/09/60minutes/main1385230.shtml) where he says:

"To me, cases like that really scream out, 'Hey, it's not out there. It's in here.' There's no indication that this mother is prone to raise very feminine boys because his twin is not that way," says Michael Bailey, a psychology professor at Northwestern University and a leading researcher in the field of sexual orientation.

Bailey says he doesn't think nurture is a plausible explanation.

It's like duh, Bailey, the identical twins have opposite sex-orientation, and you're saying gay orientation is genetic. Like Duh, Duh, Duh Bailey you just proved that heredity plays little importance in gay orientation, just look at the twins. BTW, the twins didn't even have a father present in their child rearing.

No wonder he (Bailey) is under investigation for his fraudulent studies. He resigned his position at Northwestern as a result of the "twin" scandal.

One thing I've noticed about homosexuals on the television debate shows like Rickki Lake...
Is this where you get all your information?

Is this where you get all your information?

I get my information from the way I see people behaving, whether they are standing in front of me or they are debating on a television show. I don't watch the Lake show anymore -- way too liberal for me,

I get my information from the way I see people behaving, whether they are standing in front of me or they are debating on a television show. I don't watch the Lake show anymore -- way too liberal for me,
The people on Rikki Lake are hardly representative of the general public. Most of them are happy to air their personal problems on TV, for one thing. Also, shows like Rikki don't look for sensible people with a cool-headed, rational approach to debating; they look for demented nutcases who could cause a row in an empty room.

The people on Rikki Lake are hardly representative of the general public. Most of them are happy to air their personal problems on TV, for one thing. Also, shows like Rikki don't look for sensible people with a cool-headed, rational approach to debating; they look for demented nutcases who could cause a row in an empty room.

Yeah, the audience gave the two gay guy debaters a standing ovation, and booed at the "christian" debaters: shouting biggot, homophobes, etc. you know, the same ole same ole. I just remember theose two gay guys couldn't wait to get up there on stage aftre hearing the opening remarks from the christians about the bible sending homos to hell.


Man those guys ran out there like their pants were on fire, with their sissy little butts just a shaking in their extra tight shorts. I couldn't help but laugh. It's a wonder they could even sit in a chair. One of them looked like his butt was sore.

Yeah, the audience gave the two gay guys a standing ovation, and booed at the "christian" debaters.
That's because Christians' views on this are 2000 years old and slightly outmoded, Woody. They're in serious need of updating.

That's because Christians' views on this are 2000 years old and slightly outmoded, Woody. They're in serious need of updating.


Yeah, when the christians talked about the risk of AIDS for gay men, their view wasn't politically correct, and needed to be updated as you say. They were booed and called liars. JUst needed some updating eh redarmy?

Man those guys ran out there like their pants were on fire, with their sissy little butts just a shaking in their extra tight shorts. I couldn't help but laugh. It's a wonder they could even sit in a chair. One of them looked like his butt was sore.
All this hatred, Woody. Such bile. Such ugliness. Do you feel justified in it? Hating people that you've never met and who've done you no harm (or perhaps they have - do tell..)? It may be in the Bible but it's not in the Christian spirit, is it? You do realise that the Bible was written by men? Do you honestly think that your God, who you would have us believe is all-loving, would condone such hatred? Woody... you're gonna burn...

I thought Jesus said gave the Greatest Commandment... love your enemies.

Oh well, I think homosexuals should finally learn that any person who is stupid enough to say, without a doubt, that he will burn in hell is stupid, ignorant, an asshole, i-am-holier-than-thou POS who doesnt know anything and who should be ignored for eternity.

Or atleast thats my view :p

All this hatred, Woody. Such bile. Such ugliness. Do you feel justified in it? Hating people that you've never met and who've done you no harm (or perhaps they have - do tell..)? It may be in the Bible but it's not in the Christian spirit, is it? You do realise that the Bible was written by men? Do you honestly think that your God, who you would have us believe is all-loving, would condone such hatred? Woody... you're gonna burn...

I think you're feeling the hatred, so you are really speaking for yourself. You know something is wrong with homosexuality, so now you're getting mad.

As for myself, I am being very kind to the homosexuals on the ex-gay forum. It's so peaceful over there. Tell me Red army, what do you have against homosexuals that are unhappy with their feelings? Do you love them? Do you hope they will get better? Do you accept them? Are you kind to them?

Show me how much love YOU have for homosexuals that perhaps do not share your views.

I don't love them.
I don't hate them.
I don't think about them.
It's just not an issue to me.
It clearly is to you.

So: do you honestly believe that your all-loving God hates homosexuals?
If not, how do you as a Christian justify such malevolence?
To yourself, I mean.
How do you sleep at night?

So: do you honestly believe that your all-loving God hates homosexuals?

No they are sinners just like anybody else, and christ died for all sinners. However, that does not excuse what sinners do, whether it's drug addiction, murder, thievery, child molesting, lieing, etc. etc.

If not, how do you as a Christian justify such malevolence?

What malevolence? I am very sympathetic to homosexuals that are trying to do better. Deeply sympathetic describes it better. Even if they fail I am still sympathetic.

To yourself, I mean. How do you sleep at night?

No problem at all.

You still have not told me what you think of homuosexuals that are unhappy with their feelings. Can you sympathize with them like I can?

I don't need to sympathize with them Woody. You're a highly twisted and biased individual who holds his religious beliefs in higher regard then the happiness of an individual. Maybe if people like you weren't around, then 45% of all homosexual teenagers wouldn't attempt SUICIDE after they're tormented by religious freaks like yourself in school and called slurs like "fag" and "queer" when they come out. I've watched people get that kind of torment and it isn't funny and it isn't a good thing to watch. Every time that you've posted on this thread, you just remind me more and more of those jocks in High School, the ones who go out and screw their girlfriends, get trashed, drop out of college, and live boring, menial lives who's only outlet is trying to find some deeper meaning to their lives, IE- God and religion.

How's this then, if we are all made in God's image Woody, then technically, SO ARE HOMOSEXUALS! And if that's the case, then they are not in any need of healing or psychological rewiring, since God made them exactly how they are supposed to be in life. Aren't we all supposed to trust God's judgment and his path for us in life? And if that be the case as well, why should you even believe that they are sinners? They're just doing what God intended for them to do, and you're doing what God intended for you to do, spout off ignorant, biased, and highly irrelevant facts from almost 30 year old articles supporting a dying frame of mind.

So I guess you are saying I made it all up. It's really hard for me to interpret anything meaningful from your diatribes. One thing I've noticed about homosexuals on the television debate shows like Rickki Lake -- man these guys just can't control themelves. It doesn't matter what they say when they're going ape-shit -- their actions speak for them. Are you gay too?

I'm so sorry...
I'm so... sorry, sorry, sorry...

:(

I wouldn't expect you to understand what I meant when I called you a fraud.

I had my reasons, and I'm sure at least one other intelligent person has picked up on it.

Maybe it had to do with the fact that you use very biased tactics and anecdotes to make your case?
I illustrated this by posting a few anti-African (black) statistics, and you countered with an account of having been neighbors with a really nice black couple; without even going into the "facts" that I presented, which apparently to you should speak for themselves about the detrimental effects of being dark-skinned, etc.

You want it to work for the homosexuals, but if it's black people, it's not valid?

And, OH! Rikki Lake has some flaming queers on her show with "their sissy little butts just a shaking in their extra tight shorts."

Thanks for paying attention to those "sissy little butts"!!! ;) They're hard to ignore, aren't they??? Are they casting a spell on you?

BTW, I'm participating on an ex-gay forum. The ex-gays and ex-lesbians over there are laughing about the reports that say it's impossible for a homosexual to change -- reports pandered by the pro-gay community in their own defense:

Good for them. Never said a thing about people being unable to change. I believe it can happen.

I also believe a lot of the reports that many of these "ex-gays" still struggle with same-sex attraction (or SSA, the formidable sounding complex).

Just because a person has claimed to have beaten same-sex attraction doesn't actually mean they don't still experience it from time to time.

Facts?

http://www.ralliance.org/SpitzerStudy.html

1) Many of the therapists were behaving unethically. For example 1/4 of those who had been through the treatments had been pressured into joining, almost none of those who felt it wasn't working were given advice on alternative counseling, and most were misled about the position of the APAs and about the supposed success rates of 'ex-gay' treatments. See Responses of US professional bodies to 'ex-gay' treatments.


2) Most patients go through an initial 'honeymoon' with the 'ex-gay' movement, followed later by disillusion.


3) Because of the hostility and lack of support by most 'ex-gay' therapists to 'failures', most patients continued to lie to their therapists about their progress. This is almost certainly the reason why Exodus and Narth therapists continue to claim 30-50% success rates, when outsiders find much less.


4) Based on self-reporting by the patients to Schroeder and Shidlo, 14% did manage long-term to either greatly reduce or completely stop homosexual practices. Of these, 5% were 'struggling'. Another 5% reported being reasonably happy (almost all of this group were celibate).


5) Only 4% (i.e. 8 patients) reported a shift in sexual orientation from 5 or more to 3 or less on a 1-7 scale of hetero/homosexual balance. Of these - the only ones who could perhaps be classified as 'ex-gays' - 7 out of 8 put down as occupation that they were 'ex-gay' counselors. The eighth person refused a follow-up interview. Obviously there is a serious conflict of interest/secondary gain issue among this group.

I suppose you or some other kind soul can tell me whether these facts are correct or not. I frankly don't have the time to care right now.
:p (<--- me not caring at this point!)

What malevolence? I am very sympathetic to homosexuals that are trying to do better.

Doing better?!?! How? By settling down and becoming like the status quo? By starting a family and having children?

It sickens me how so many of these ex-gay testimonies involve a "successful" ex-homo that turned his/her life around and now has a family (husband/wife/children). Is that really success???

That would probably be news to Jesus or the Apostle Paul, neither of whom ever married (if you believe the accepted gospel testimony) with Paul even urging people NOT to marry. Does salvation suddenly come from being a "successful" heterosexual with children to boot?

Doing better! HA!

You still have not told me what you think of homuosexuals that are unhappy with their feelings. Can you sympathize with them like I can?

I'm sure I can. Life is filled with people who are unhappy with their feelings, their lives, their relationships.

Divorce is common. All too common, in this age. And divorced heterosexuals (with children, no less) outnumber homosexuals. Why don't you focus on them??? After all, they've done the "heterosexual thing" and procreated, like God apparently wanted all the way back in Genesis with the commandment "Be fruitful and multiply."
They've brought children into this world and failed to supply them with the optimal environment in which to be raised (man/woman-husband/wife). Aren't you more concerned about the children who have already been born?
Or are you just concerned with the prospective homosexual parents that just may want to raise children of their own?

Maybe you should focus on the larger problem?

2) Most patients go through an initial 'honeymoon' with the 'ex-gay' movement, followed later by disillusion.



Well, if this doesn't sound like more than one testimony I've read!

People go to meetings, build up this fervor, and feel as if they're making some phenomenal progress, only to have that feeling slip away, and to realize that they're not experiencing the great change that they thought they were making.

Yes, Woody, there are such testimonials.

Though I'm sure according to you they're due to people "not trying hard enough", right?

Or, if you're of the predestination persuasion, these people were born to be lost from the start.

ra said:

1. You're a homophobe. This will make them pissy towards you. It's understandable.
2. You're a homphobe. This will cause you to interpret them as being pissy even when they're not being. You will actively look for pissiness as it will confirm your prejudices.

Ha Ha that's a good one. I'm an a priori homophobe, ha ha ha. Very good ra. My wife didn't find out her friend was gay until after he died from AIDS. Then it all came out of the closet. You are very funny ra HA HA HA HA HA. Very funny.

AS for the gay step-nephew, like I said he was always pissy pissy pissy, even before he was gay.

The people on Rikki Lake are hardly representative of the general public.

Ha ha ha. Red army you are just a riot. Sciforums is hardly representative of the general public either. Rikki and scifourms -- two peas in a pod. HA HA HA HA.

he was always pissy pissy pissy, even before he was gay.
You realize that is a logically flawed statement. If someone is gay, they are born gay. There is no "before they were gay" with a homosexual individual.

ra HA HA, etc.
I find you hilarious too Woody, pretending to hate gays when you really just hate your obsession with little butts in extra tight shorts.

And, of course, the more you post and the more you deny it, the more you confirm this to be true.

RA said:

I find you hilarious too Woody, pretending to hate gays when you really just hate your obsession with little butts in extra tight shorts.

When I laugh at them, that's the "gayest" I'll ever be.

RA said:

I find you hilarious too Woody, pretending to hate gays when you really just hate your obsession with little butts in extra tight shorts.

When I laugh at them, that's the "gayest" I'll ever be.

You still haven't expressed your love for homosexuals that are unhappy with their unwanted feelings. You know, the ones that are gay but don't want to be gay, so they decided to change their lifestyle.

How do you feel about them RA? They are gay too aren't they? Does your comradry only extend to those gays that think like you do?

You realize that is a logically flawed statement. If someone is gay, they are born gay. There is no "before they were gay" with a homosexual individual.

*************
M*W: Woody is gay. There's no doubt about it. He pursues ex-gay websites. He holds chats with its members. He's so unsure about his own sexuality. He is homophobic. But where does the homophobic end and the homosexual begin? Woody has a woody for men. There's no other explanation. Woody fantasizes about sticking his woody into a manly ass. His wife doesn't have the right orifice. Poor wife. Woody needs a male ass to penetrate for ecstacy. Woody has made it perfectly clear what he needs. Woody needs anal sex. He only has a hard-on for anal sex. Let Woody have what he needs, but don't tell his wife she doesn't satisfy him. She's a fool for marrying a gay man! Woody loves hairy assholes. They turn him on! Woody fantasizes about butt-fucking other christian men. They are so sexy to him. He is a fundamental male ass fucker. Go Woody, Go! Fuck those Southern Baptist assholes hard!

You still haven't expressed your love for homosexuals that are unhappy with their unwanted feelings. You know, the ones that are gay but don't want to be gay, so they decided to change their lifestyle.
We've already discussed this Woody. I don't love them. I don't hate them. I don't know them, so I don't think about them.

Sorry - I just don't share your obsession.

But I bear them no ill-will if that's what you mean. If they feel such a conflict between their sexuality and their religion that they feel it necessary to give up on their true feelings and pretend to be something other than what God made them - well, who am I to deny them that right? Does that answer your question?

*************
M*W: Woody is gay. There's no doubt about it. He pursues ex-gay websites. He holds chats with its members. He's so unsure about his own sexuality. He is homophobic. But where does the homophobic end and the homosexual begin? Woody has a woody for men. There's no other explanation. Woody fantasizes about sticking his woody into a manly ass. His wife doesn't have the right orifice. Poor wife. Woody needs a male ass to penetrate for ecstacy. Woody has made it perfectly clear what he needs. Woody needs anal sex. He only has a hard-on for anal sex. Let Woody have what he needs, but don't tell his wife she doesn't satisfy him. She's a fool for marrying a gay man! Woody loves hairy assholes. They turn him on! Woody fantasizes about butt-fucking other christian men. They are so sexy to him. He is a fundamental male ass fucker. Go Woody, Go! Fuck those Southern Baptist assholes hard!

There are several ex-lesbians over there too. Does this disappoint you?

No way I could ever take anal sex, MW, no way. ON the sending end of it, I can't say I enjoy the smell of crap. It turns me off. I'd say the idea is about as sexy as coitus with a pile of dog-poop. On the receiving end, I about died from pain when I had a sigmoidoscopy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmoidoscopy) run up my butt. I personally don't see how anyone can receive pleasure from that experience unless they're a total masochist. I'd say it's about as pleasureable as childbirth.

I think you have some mental-emotional issues to work through. I hope you can get over them.